On Point blog, page 2 of 21
In case involving unique application of “once waived, always waived” COA holds that “previous violation” doesn’t mean a violation that occurred previously
State v. A.A., 2025AP1907, 11/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case involving a unique waiver posture, COA concludes that the circuit court correctly interpreted the statutes when it used a waiver decision in another county to exempt A.A. from juvenile jurisdiction.
COA critiques Gramza but extends its holding to apply to § 973.195 petitions for sentence adjustment
State v. Angela R. Joski, 2023AP1371-CR, 10/29/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
The state appealed Joski’s early release under Wis. Stat. § 973.195, arguing that pursuant to State v. Gramza, 2020 WI App 81, ¶24, 395 Wis. 2d 215, 952 N.W.2d 836, Joski must fully serve the mandatory minimum three-year term of initial confinement prescribed by Wis. Stat. § 346.65. COA agrees due to Gramza‘s interpretation, and reverses.
Defense win: COA reverses order continuing protective placement
La Crosse County and S.A.A. v. M.A., 2025AP269, 10/30/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another protective placement win, COA agrees that the County’s evidence failed to satisfy the standards and reverses.
COA: Licensed hemp processor may be prosecuted for controlled substance offenses without referral from administrative agency that regulates hemp industry
State v. Christopher J. Syrrakos & Kristyn A. Shattuck, 2024AP554 & 2024AP556, 10/29/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The COA held, in a decision recommended for publication, that a licensed hemp processor may be prosecuted for offenses related to possessing, manufacturing, and delivering products that contain concentrations of THC above the threshold to be classified as “hemp” without a referral by the agency concerned with regulating the hemp industry.
COA affirms probable cause finding at refusal hearing
State v. Jason D. Hull, 2025AP483, 10/23/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s judgment that the Dodge County Sheriff’s Department had probable cause to believe that Jason Hull operated a vehicle while intoxicated and his refusal to submit to chemical testing was therefore improper.
SCOTUS’s most recent order list includes impassioned dissent regarding juror impeachment rule
In an interesting dissent from an order denying cert, three justices join together to decry the rigorous application of the juror impeachment rule in a case that resulted in a verdict of death.
SCOW to determine whether failing to make examiner’s report accessible to defense counsel within 48 hours of final Chapter 51 hearing denies circuit court competence to proceed.
Outagamie County v. M.J.B., 2024AP250, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 10/6/25; case activity
SCOW granted Outagamie County’s petition for review to address whether an examiner’s report filed less than 48 hours in advance of the final hearing is inaccessible for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(10)(b), which provides that “[c]ounsel for the person to be committed shall have access to all psychiatric and other reports 48 hours in advance of the final hearing.”
Seventh Circuit Cases for September
September brought a couple of criminal and criminal-adjacent cases including:
In fact-intensive TPR appeal, COA rejects numerous creative legal arguments and affirms
State of Wisconsin v. D.R.-R.D.J. 2024AP2406, 10/8/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an imposingly lengthy opinion involving an interesting choice of counsel claim (among many others), COA rejects arguments that “Diane” was denied her rights to counsel of choice and to the effective assistance of counsel and affirms.
COA rejects pro se challenges to restitution, domestic abuse assessment and denial of expungement
State v. Stephen P. Lodwick, 2024AP2013, 9/17/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Lodwick appeals, pro se, orders denying his motions for a new trial and reconsideration. He contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motions because he was “in custody” for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 974.06 at the time he filed the motions because he was subject to a civil judgment stemming from the restitution order. He also argues that the restitution order was based on false information and the court erred in imposing the domestic abuse modifier. COA affirms.