On Point: A. Review Grants

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State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2021AP1346-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision, granted 11/12/24; reversed 6/13/25; case activity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

State v. Donte Quintell McBride, 2021AP311-CR, state’s petition to review an unpublished court of appeals decision granted, 4/18/23; affirmed, 2023 WI 68 case activity (including briefs, PFR, and response to PFR)

Issues (from the State’s PFR):

1. When reviewing a motion to suppress, what is the proper application of the “clearly erroneous” standard of review?

2. Was the seizure and subsequent search of McBride constitutional where police observed two people sitting in an unilluminated SUV, which appeared to obstruct traffic, late at night in a high crime area, and when McBride made furtive movements in response to the officer’s spotlight?

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Antonio S. Davis v. Circuit Court for Dane County and Honorable Ellen K. Berz, 2022AP1999-W, PFR granted 03/31/2023;  COA decision affirmed, 2024 WI 14, case activity (including briefs, petition for review, and state’s response)

Davis was arrested and charged with two misdemeanors in Dane County. He applied for an attorney through the State Public Defender a day after his arrest, but made his initial appearance before a court commissioner without appointed trial counsel. That same day, Davis’ case was assigned to Judge Ellen K. Berz. Counsel was appointed to represent Davis 65 days later, and after consultation with his newly appointed counsel, Davis filed a request for substitution. Judge Berz denied the request as “untimely.” The supreme court will now review whether the delayed appointment of counsel provides an exception to the strict adherence to Wis. Stat. § 971.20(4)’s deadline to file a request for substitution.

State v. Morris V. Seaton, 2021AP1399-CR, certification granted 3/24/23;  remanded, 2023 WI 69;District 2; case activity (including briefs) case activity (including briefs)

Question presented (from the court of appeals’ certification):

In light of the 2014 amendment of WIS. STAT. § 904.04(2)(b) (2019-20), codifying and expanding the “greater latitude” rule and the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Dorsey, 2018 WI 10, ¶¶23-25, 379 Wis. 2d 386, 906 N.W.2d 158, interpreting and applying that amendment, are State v. Alsteen, 108 Wis. 2d 723, 324 N.W.2d 426 (1982), and State v. Cofield, 2000 WI App 196, 238 Wis. 2d 467, 618 N.W.2d 214, still controlling law as they relate to the admissibility of prior nonconsensual sexual wrongs in cases involving an adult victim of an alleged sexual assault where consent is the primary issue?