Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
COA holds plea questionnaire and waiver of counsel forms insufficient to shift burden for collateral attack
State v. Matthew John Flynn, 2024AP2306-CR, 12/17/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Flynn appeals his operating while intoxicated, third offense, conviction and an order denying his collateral attack motion. He argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion because he alleged sufficient facts to suggest that the prior conviction did not rest upon a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel. COA affirms.
COA rejects challenge to circuit court’s exercise of discretion on disposition determination
Marquette County DHS v. J.J., 2025AP1963, 1964 & 1965, 12/18/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
J.J. stipulated to the existence of grounds for termination but contested disposition. He now appeals the orders terminating his parental rights to three of his children, arguing that the circuit court erred because it based its termination decision in part on his poverty. COA concludes that the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and affirms.
COA affirms continuing protective placement over sufficiency challenge in a “close case.”
Eau Claire County v. R.B.-K., 2025AP1466, 12/16/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a “close case,” the COA affirmed continuing protective placement over a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that “Rory” was a danger to himself.
Publication Orders for October, November and December
As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication, this time for October, November and December.
COA rejects challenges to discretionary order in CHIPS case and affirms
State v. A.B., Jr., 2024AP2454-56, 12/16/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare CHIPS appeal, COA applies the discretionary standard of review and affirms.
COA resolves recurring challenge to DV enhancer, rejects reliance on Rector, and applies definition of “separate occasions” from prior case law
State v. Brian Tyrone Ricketts, Jr., 2024AP2291-CR, 12/9/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
Following on the heels of the recent litigation as to the meaning of “separate occasions” that reached SCOW in the Rector case, COA holds that two charges in the same case constitute “separate occasions” for the purposes of the domestic abuse repeater.
COA applies harmless error rule to statutory right to be present at plea hearing, holds any error was harmless
State v. Charles Williams, 2024AP1424-CR, 12/2/25, District III (authored, not recommended for publication); case activity
Williams argues that the circuit court erred by denying his postconviction motion to withdraw his plea because he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right, under WIS. STAT. § 971.04(1)(g), to appear in person at the plea hearing. COA assumes without deciding that Williams did not waive his right to be present, but concludes that any error was harmless and affirms.
COA does not resolve novel Fourth Amendment issue, holds that consent excuses years-long seizure of cell phone
State v. Ryan D. Zimmerman, 2023AP1888-CR, 11/25/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although Zimmerman identifies a novel Fourth Amendment issue, COA ultimately uses Zimmerman’s consent to get around that issue and affirms.
COA: Police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to suspected drunk driver although officer commented to driver that not all of the warnings applied.
State v. Sam M. Shareef, 2025AP661, 12/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA holds that police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to a suspected drunk driver although the officer told the driver that some of the circumstances described on the Informing the Accused form did not apply to him.
COA affirms denial of motion to dismiss delinquency petition filed 351 days after the § 938.25(2)(a) deadline.
State v. K.R.C., 2025AP90, 12/9/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Kyle” appeals, arguing that the state did not have good cause for filing a delinquency petition outside the 20-day filing deadline in WIS. STAT. § 938.25(2)(a). COA disagrees and affirms.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.