On Point

State v. E.L., 2026AP1497, 9/9/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Emily” appeals the circuit court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child, “Gretchen,” arguing that the court erroneously exercise of discretion when it found that termination was in Gretchen’s best interests. Emily claims the court failed to consider whether Gretchen had substantial relationships with other family members, and whether it would be harmful to her if those relationships were severed. COA affirms.

State v. Kevin Jones, 2025AP1539-CR, 9/8/26, District IV; case activity (including briefs)

On the heels of its certification last month in Bethke (see our post here) asking SCOW to determine whether Wisconsin’s legalization of hemp requires the State to prove as an element of the offense of possessing tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) that a substance contains greater than 0.3 percent of THC, the COA certified two additional issues for SCOW.

Murphy Allan Thompson v. Wis. Dept. of Justice, 2024AP2244 & 25AP142, 9/1/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

Thompson appeals from a circuit court order denying his petition for judicial review of DOJ’s decision denying his application to renew his license to carry a concealed weapon and the order denying of his motion for reconsideration. DOJ previously granted Thompson a CCW license because his prior felony conviction had been expunged, but as a result of the supreme court’s decision in State v. Braunschweig, 2018 WI 113, 384 Wis. 2d 742, 921 N.W.2d 199, DOJ denied him renewal. COA affirms.

It’s September, so that leaves us asking the usual question: What happened to the summer? It turns out that July and August were busy months for the Seventh, so we’ll be updating readers in two installments. We will also be posting separately on the big defense win with respect to AI child porn. This installment features discussion of whether those previously involuntarily committed can possess guns, the contractual interpretation of plea bargains, and a smattering of Fourth Amendment cases.

Rhiannon M. Stroede v. Jason R. Royal, 2025AP2654, 9/3/26, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA held that an order terminating a parent’s rights to a child automatically terminates the parent’s obligation to pay child support and the parent is entitled to be reimbursed for any overpayments.

State v. Deonte D. Anderson, 2025AP1309 & 2025AP1310, 9/2/26, District II (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s petition for conditional release from a commitment entered after he was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.  Although the defendant no longer suffered from a mental illness and had not engaged in violence for four years, his poor behavioral record at the Mendota Mental Health Institute was sufficient evidence to deny the petition.

State v. Antwon C. Powell, 2024AP2551, 8/25/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA held that a circuit court may rely on a victim’s life expectancy to set an eligibility date for extended supervision, provided life expectancy is relevant to the primary sentencing factors.

State v. Y.M., 2026AP1212, 8/27/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Yolanda” challenges the circuit court’s exercise of discretion at disposition, arguing that the evidence lacked “complete and meaningful testimony” from the children’s foster placements and potential adoptive parents. COA rejects these arguments and affirms.

State v. Paula Andrea Champion, 2025AP802, 8/18/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms circuit court’s denial of Paula Champion’s motion to suppress in appeal of PAC 1st judgment.

Lincoln County v. Kayla J. Ristau, 2024AP404, 8/25/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case interpreting a common scenario for some practitioners handling first offense OWIs, COA clarifies the ability of the circuit court to hold a defendant in default for nonappearance and reverses this default order.