On Point

So far this year, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has published one criminal law related decision. Here are the publication orders for January and February 2024. The lone published decision is in State v. Dustin J. VanderGalien, 2024 WI App 4 (rejecting a constitutional challenge to the criminalization of driving with a detectable non-impairing cocaine […]

State v. S.N., 2023AP2366-67, 2/27/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Sally’s” challenge to the court’s discretionary termination order fails, as the circuit court’s order was supported by evidence in the record.

State v. M.L.J.N.L., 2021AP1437, 2/28/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In one of our first published decisions to address the impact of Marsy’s Law, COA accepts the agreed-upon position of both parties that Marsy’s Law does not alter the framework for assessing requests for juvenile restitution under § 938.34(5)(a). 

Burnett County v. B.S., 2023AP1811-FT, 2/28/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Due in part to last-minute witness unavailability, the County’s attempt to rely solely on generic and conclusory testimony from an examining psychiatrist fails in yet another helpful, and citable, 51 win.

Winnebago County v. B.R.C., 2023AP1842, 2/14/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In quite the head-scratcher, the court of appeals rejects a D.J.W. “specific factual findings” claim while acknowledging that such claims “are multiplying and it is clear that all sides could benefit from clarity on the point.” (Emphasis added). The court then proceeds to offer a step-by-step guide guide for circuit courts to make D.J.W. findings that will be “less likely to be overturned on appeal.” While the circuit court’s findings at issue don’t come close to any such model of clarity, the court holds that they were “sufficient” to allow the court conduct a “meaningful review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion and the evidence presented at the hearing.” Op., ¶21. 

Manitowoc County HSD v. B.M.T., 2022AP2079 & 2023AP904, 2/21/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this consolidated appeal from successive orders extending B.M.T.’s civil commitment, the court of appeals rejects B.M.T.’s claim that the circuit court lacked competency to enter the 2022 order, but agrees that the circuit court failed to comply with D.J.W.’s requirement “to make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based.” As a result, the court “must” reverse the 2023 commitment order and the corresponding order for involuntary medication. Op., ¶30.

State v. M.M., 2023AP2093-2100, 2/22/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Challenges to circuit court disposition orders are almost never successful. This case is no exception. M.M. (“Melissa”) argued that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that terminating her parental rights to her eight children was in the best interests of the children. The court of appeals disagrees and affirms.

Kenosha County DC&FS v. R.M.F., 2023AP2156-157, 2/21/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Given the difficult standard for proving judicial bias, COA concludes that R.M.F. has failed to show that the court’s remarks to jurors are a basis for reversing this TPR.

Winnebago County v. J.D.J., 2023AP1085, 2/21/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another opinion which stresses the need for County-petitioners to take more care at extension hearings, COA reverses for failure to make an adequate record below.

State v. Matthew Curtis Stills, 2022AP1390-CR, 2/13/24, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity

This 2016 case out of Milwaukee County has a bit of a backstory and an unfortunate ending for Sills. In 2020, the court of appeals reversed Sills’ conviction based on a Bangert violation related to the circuit court’s failure to advise Sills of the maximum fine. Thereafter, Sills went to trial, was convicted, and was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, compared to the 15 years he received after his original plea. This time around, Sills raises two issues on appeal: (1) that trial court’s objective bias violated his right to a fair trial and (2) that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Unlike his first appeal, the court affirms rejects his claims and affirms his new conviction.