On Point: A. Review Grants

State v. Emil L. Melssen, 2024AP1942-CR, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 8/21/26; case activity

SCOW has granted the state’s petition to review a published COA decision (see our post here), which held, as a matter of first impression, that a “warrant must specify the particular items of evidence to be searched for and seized from the smartphone, and its authorization must be limited to the time period and information or other data for which probable cause has been properly established through the facts and circumstances set forth under oath in the warrant’s supporting affidavit.” (Cleaned up).

State v. Ayanna Chuntel McAfee, 2024AP1635-CR, petition for review of a summary disposition order of the court of appeals, granted 8/18/26; case activity

SCOW grants Ayanna McAfee’s petition for review to address whether the odor of cannabis alone provides probable cause to search a car.

State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 8/18/26; case activity

SCOW grants the state’s petition in this defense win (see our post on the COA decision here), which held that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits a circuit court to revoke an NGI acquittee’s conditional release and to commit the acquittee to institutional care based solely on the violation of a court-ordered condition or department rule without proof of current dangerousness.

State v. Samuel R. Osornio, 2024AP2368-CR, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision, granted 5/20/26; case activity

This is a Len Bias case in which the COA granted a new trial on the basis that Osornio showed there was at least a reasonable probability that he would not have been convicted of reckless homicide if the jury had been properly instructed from the start. SCOW will determine the burden of proof and whether COA diluted the reasonable probability standard for the prejudice prong of Osornio’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

State v. Jonathan James Petersen, 2024AP581-CR, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision, granted 5/20/26; case activity

SCOW will address whether the First Amendment permits a circuit court to impose a complete ban on using social media as a condition of extended supervision.

Outagamie County v. M.J.B., 2024AP250, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 10/6/25; reversed 6/26/26; 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.” 

State ex rel. Wis. Dep’t of Corrs., Div. of Cmty. Corrs. v. Hayes, 2023AP1140, petition for review of a per curiam court of appeals decision, granted 11/12/24; affirmed 7/3/25; case activity (including briefs)

The Division of Hearings and Appeals decided not to revoke Sellers’s probation. DOC, on writ of certiorari to the circuit court, prevailed, and DHA appealed. On appeal, DHA and Sellers asked the COA to affirm DHA’s original decision not to revoke Sellers’s probation. The COA agreed with DHA and Sellers, reversing the circuit court’s order and affirming DHA’s decision not to revoke Sellers’s probation. DOC petitioned for review.

State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2021AP1346-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision, granted 11/12/24; reversed 6/13/25; case activity

In a case that we correctly identified as SCOW bait, SCOW accepts review of the State’s petition for review asking to modify the substantive law on vouching as applied by COA. The case is also relevant to determining what is “settled law” in assessing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Van Oudenhoven v. Wis. Dept. of Justice, 2023AP70-FT, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision, granted 11/12/24; dismissed as improvidently granted 6/24/25; case activity (including briefs)

SCOW granted review to determine whether an expunged conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under Wisconsin law qualifies as an “expungement” under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) for purposes of obtaining a firearm.

State v. Jackson, 2023 WI 37, 5/12/23, dismissing as improvidently granted review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2019AP2383; case activity (including briefs)

Our post on the grant of review in this case said SCOW might use it to “expound on State v. Cooper, 2019 WI 73, 387 Wis. 2d 439, 929 N.W.2d 192 (IAC claims where counsel has been disciplined), Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985)(prejudice prong in the plea context); Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) and Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012)(failure to communicate plea offer). There will be no expounding on those cases. Instead, SCOW dismisses the case as improvidently granted. That doesn’t mean there’s not any expounding to be had, though: Justices R.G. Bradley (in concurrence) and A.W. Bradley (in dissent) write to state their views on whether SCOW should explain itself when it DIGs.