On Point

David Asa Villarreal v. Texas, USSC No. 24-557, certiorari granted 4/7/25

SCOTUS added to its 2025-26 docket this week when it granted the petitioner’s cert. petition to address the following:

Question presented:

Whether a trial court abridges the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess.

State v. Natalie S. Lozano, 2024AP1540-CR & 2024AP1541-CR, 4/9/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another appeal hinging on the requirement that a license plate be “legible,” COA affirms based on its deference to the circuit court’s factual findings.

State v. Danny Thomas McClain, Jr., 2024AP8, 4/8/25 District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

COA affirms the circuit court’s order denying suppression of the evidence (field sobriety tests and preliminary breathalyzer tests), finding that police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop to investigate the defendant for additional criminal activity.

Monroe County v. G.L.B., 2024AP1596, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Monroe County v. T.B., 2024AP1845, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA issued two decisions affirming the circuit court’s dispositional orders finding that T.B.’s (the mother) and G.L.B.’s (the father) son was in need of protection and services (CHIPS) and placing the child in out-of-home care.  The COA rejected the parents’ arguments that the circuit court erroneously denied their petition to transfer jurisdiction to Ho-Chunk Tribal Court and that the court erred in granting medical decision-making authority to the Monroe County Department of Human Services (the Department).  The COA also disagreed with the father’s argument that the circuit court erroneously admitted at trial evidence regarding risk assessments of his parenting skills.

Waukesha County v. A.T., 2025AP167, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Amber” appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her 6-year-old daughter, “Holly.” She argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition. COA affirms under the deferential, erroneous exercise of discretion standard.

Winnebago County v. J.M., 2024AP1554, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirmed the circuit court’s order recommitting J.M. (referred to as “James Moore”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication.  The Court found that Moore suffers from schizoaffective disorder, which caused him to drink an excessive amount of water to the point that he needed to be transported to the emergency room for low sodium levels in his body.  The Court therefore found that Moore is a danger to himself, and that he is a proper subject for treatment because his condition is treatable with medication.

J.H. v. J.L.B., 2025AP85, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA reviews the grant of summary judgment on abandonment and failure to assume parental rights de novo and concludes that there are issues of material fact as to each ground. The court therefore reverses and remands for a fact-finding hearing.

S.G. v. Wisconsin DCF, 2024AP472, 4/3/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a unique CHIPS appeal, COA clarifies the proper role of corporation counsel when another party files a CHIPS petition.

Brown County v. N.H., 2024AP1991-1993, 4/2/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Although the County erred by listing the wrong date in a published notice, COA affirms given the court’s factual findings that the respondent was served by mail.

Jacob Alan Powers v. Jon Noble, No. 24-2134, 3/25/25

The Seventh Circuit found that Jacob Powers was competent to stand trial in a Wisconsin court in 2006 for sexual assault of a child and child enticement.  Although Powers’ IQ was in the borderline/mild mental retardation range; his trial testimony, trial counsel’s decision not to challenge his competency, and two experts’ findings that he was competent convinced the Court that he reasonably understood the charges against him, trial procedures, and could assist his lawyer in his defense.  The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s order denying Powers’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus.