On Point

September brought a couple of criminal and criminal-adjacent cases including

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.

As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication, this time for July, August and September.

Portage County v. Z.D.R., 2025AP1330 & 20205AP1331, 10/2/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s orders terminating Z.D.R.’s parental rights to his two children, finding that summary judgment was appropriate regarding grounds to terminate because there was no factual dispute that he abandoned the children, and that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it found that terminating Z.D.R.’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children.

State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, 9/25/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

COA agrees with Wilhite 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. It also concludes that the unconstitutional provisions in § 971.17(3)(e) are severable, and leaves in place the remainder of the statute.

S.S. and L.S. v. A.S.P. and M.P., 2024AP2532, 9/23/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

Although COA rejects 2/3 of “Amanda’s” legal arguments, she eventually prevails in a rare plain error win as a result of  defective instructions and a defective verdict form with respect to the abandonment ground in this TPR appeal.

Dane County v. Jeramiah Bradley, 2025AP172, 9/18/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In an unusual turn of events, the State actually conceded its prosecution of Bradley was unsupported under the law. The judge dismissed the case, but denied Bradley’s requests for costs. Although the State puts up a number of arguments to get around paying $381.85 in costs, COA rejects those arguments and reverses.

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.

Brown County v. K.B., 2024AP1843, District III, 9/16/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA agrees with “Kathy” that the county failed to present sufficient evidence establishing that she is in continuing need of protective placement, and reverses the ch. 55 order.

United States v. Jose Angel Hernandez-Pineda, 25-CR-64 (E.D. Wis. 8/25/25).

In an interesting Fourth Amendment case, the Eastern District holds that officers violated Hernandez-Peneda’s Fourth Amendment rights when they searched his apartment without a warrant and without his voluntary consent.