On Point blog, page 8 of 790
COA affirms ch. 51 medication order in “close case”
Dane County v. A.M.M., 2024AP1670, 2/13/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Amanda” challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to her medication order. The COA calls this a “close case,” but affirms.
COA rejects challenges to extension and medication orders and affirms another Chapter 51
Racine County v. C.D.B., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In “Banks’s” most recent appeal, he once again challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to his extension and medication orders. Like his last appeal, however, those arguments go nowhere.
COA rejects sufficiency challenge to grounds and finds that court did not err in terminating parental rights
State v. R.J.S., 2024AP2186, 2/7/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects R.J.S.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and applies a well-settled standard of review to uphold the circuit court’s discretionary termination order.
COA: Tint meter evidence not required to confirm officer’s belief that vehicle windows were illegally tinted to establish reasonable suspicion for stop.
State v. Joseph Paul Morello, 2024AP931-CR, 2/6/25, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s order denying Joseph Morello’s motion to suppress the fruits of his traffic stop. Although COA did not address circuit court’s conclusion that police had reasonable suspicion that Morello’s vehicle was connected to reports of gunshots, it affirmed on alternative ground that there was reasonable suspicion Morello’s vehicle’s windows were excessively tinted.
COA once again holds that a colloquy is not required before a person stipulates to a mental commitment order
Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 5/21/25 case activity
In yet another appeal asking COA to clarify the procedure for accepting a stipulation to a mental commitment, COA refuses N.A.L.’s invitation to issue a precedential opinion and affirms based largely on a prior unpublished decision.
COA holds that County sufficiently proved dangerousness under second standard
Trempealeau County v. C.B.O., 2024AP1520-FT, 2/4/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms, holding that the evidence of a verbal threat to kill someone, and “Carl’s” actions during a subsequent police chase, were both sufficient to establish dangerousness under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.b.
COA reverses circuit court’s denial of state’s motion to revoke diversion agreement
State v. Jonathon Wayne Allen Beenken, 2024AP419-CR, 1/24/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
COA holds that the clear and unambiguous terms of Beenken’s diversion agreement required the circuit court to grant the state’s motion to revoke the agreement.
In potentially consequential 51 appeal, COA suggests DJW errors can be cured during postconviction proceedings
Waupaca County v. A.L.H., 2024AP1526, 1/30/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
While many litigators may have believed the issue of a remedy for a D.J.W. violation had been clarified by SCOW, COA holds that recent precedent does not preclude a circuit court from making the required findings during postconviction proceedings.
COA rejects pro se challenges to OWI 1st and refusal convictions
City of Rhinelander v. Zachary Tyler LaFave-LaCrosse, 2020AP1120 & 1121, 1/7/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
LaCrosse appeals pro se from the circuit court judgments, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of first-offense operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) and refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. COA rejects all his arguments and affirms.
D4 issues another speedy trial decision recommended for publication, holds that COVID-related delays should not weigh against the state
State v. Cordero D. Coleman, 2023AP2414-CR, 12/27/24, District IV (recommended for publication), case activity
COA holds that a 32-month delay in trying Coleman did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial where the COVID-19 pandemic was the primary cause of the delay. In doing so, COA identifies a new category of reasons for state-attributed delay, “which encompasses those delays that are caused by a reasonable government response to a legitimate public emergency” and holds such delays should not be weighed against the state. (¶56).