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 rejects attempt to distinguish SCOW precedent and finds dangerousness in Ch. 51
Washington County v. P.B.T., 2026AP1230, 9/23/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although P.B.T. tries to argue that the plain text of the statute precluded a finding of dangerousness, COA finds his argument foreclosed by existing precedent interpreting that statute and affirms.
COA rejects multiple challenges to appointment of guardian for child
Monroe County v. T.L.B., 2025AP2519, 9/24/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
T.L.B. appeals an order appointing a guardian of the person for her minor child, G.L.W., under WIS. STAT. § 48.977. She makes numerous arguments, including that the circuit court applied the incorrect legal standard and that its conclusions were erroneous. COA affirms.
COA affirms convictions for municipal ordinance violations because appellant did not obtain adequate record for appeal.
County of Monroe v. Nicholas H. Withey, 2025AP1802, 10/1/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the defendant-appellant’s convictions for disorderly conduct and resisting officer because the record was not sufficiently developed to review any issues on their merits.
Appellant forfeited right to challenge circuit court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with tribal court over guardianship proceeding because objection to jurisdiction not raised in circuit court.
Monroe County v. G.L.B., 2025AP2239, 9/24/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA held that the appellant forfeited his right to appeal the circuit court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with the Ho-Chunk Nation tribal court on Monroe County’s guardianship petition because he did not raise his arguments in the circuit court.
Defense win: State may not refile charges that circuit court previously erroneously dismissed with prejudice
State v. Terry Lee Anderson, 2025AP1435, 9/17/26, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Anderson appeals the judgment convicting him of three counts that the circuit court had, in a previous case, dismissed with prejudice. COA agrees that the circuit court lacked the authority to disregard its prior dismissal order as void, and remands with instructions that the court vacate the counts that were previously dismissed with prejudice.
COA holds that trial attorney had no duty to ensure his client reviewed video evidence before pleading guilty
State v. Corey L. Gransberry, 2025AP1770-CR, 9/9/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity
Although Gransberry tries to develop a novel ineffectiveness claim, COA rejects his arguments based on an alleged failure to review certain evidence and affirms.
COA holds that need for protection from one of the specified harms — abuse, financial exploitation, neglect, or self-neglect — is sufficient to continue protective placement.
Dane County v. L.A.E., 2026AP906, 9/17/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed continuing L.A.E.’s protective placement over his objections that the County did not prove he had a primary need for residential care and custody and that his debilities created a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others.
COA rejects probable cause, Franks-Mann and spoliation challenges, affirms PAC & refusal judgments
Portage County v. Carter Townsend Andreae, 2024AP1330 & 1331, 9/11/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects Andreae’s challenges to the circuit court’s denial of his three pretrial motions and affirms the refusal and PAC 1st.
COA rejects claim that consent to blood draw given by injured motorist was involuntary
State v. Bailey Reed Vande Slunt, 2025AP2284-CR, 9/9/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Vande Slunt argues that his condition following a significant car crash rendered his consent involuntary, COA rejects his reliance on a persuasive federal case and affirms.
In a ruling with Wisconsin implications, 7th Circuit holds that defendant cannot be prosecuted for possessing AI-generated CSAM in his home
United States of America v. Steven Anderegg, No. 25-1354, 8/25/26
In a case that has generated national headlines, the Seventh holds that Anderegg cannot be prosecuted for possessing CSAM he produced using artificial intelligence.
Important Posts
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.