On Point

State v. D.Y., 2024AP710, 12/26/24, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Daniel” appeals from the circuit court’s order adjudicating him as a juvenile delinquent, on the basis of a second-degree sexual assault of a child offense. (¶1). He contends that the state failed to prove the intent element, specifically, sexual gratification or arousal from the contact. (¶10). The COA concludes that there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s decision and affirms.

State v. Lavelle Edgar Young, 2024AP470, 12/26/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Lavelle Young’s motion to suppress physical evidence and his statements when an officer knocked on the window of his vehicle after observing Young sleeping in the driver’s seat of the vehicle.  The Court held that Young was not seized and was not in custody when he was questioned by police.

Monroe County v. M.C., 2024AP924, 12/12/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s commitment order under Chapter 51 where the court did not make sufficient factual findings to support its conclusion that M.C. was dangerous, as required by D.J.W.

State v. Jeffrey A. Roth, 2024AP737, 12/11/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Three police officers confronted Roth after receiving a complaint that he was stumbling around and then sitting in a vehicle. The state charged Roth with five counts, including resisting. Before his jury trial, which resulted in two misdemeanor convictions, Roth moved to dismiss based on the police officers’ failure to preserve body and squad camera footage of the underlying incident. After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the motion. The COA affirms, concluding that Roth failed to prove the videos were apparently exculpatory, or that the police acted in bad faith.

State v. L.J.T., Jr., 2024AP1877-CR, 12/12/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a very unique appeal arising from pretrial competency proceedings, COA holds that the defendant was not competent to exercise the right of self-representation and reverses for a new hearing.

State v. Eric J. Joling, 2023AP1023-CR, 12/11/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

Federal law prohibits subjecting social security disability insurance payments (SSDI) to “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.”  42 U.S.C. § 407(a).  In a decision recommended for publication, the Court of Appeals held that a circuit court may nevertheless use a defendant’s SSDI payments to calculate the ability to pay restitution. 

Trempealeau County v. R.B., 2024AP1052, 12/10/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms, holding that the evidence of potential deterioration during commitment period justified extension order.

State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2023AP874-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision, granted 12/10/24; affirmed 7/3/25 case activity

In an interesting case asking the justices to probe the competing interests at stake when a victim becomes a criminal defendant, SCOW will be given an opportunity to assess Wisconsin’s coercion defense under some very unique facts.

City of Platteville v. Travis Jon Knautz, 2024AP1291 & 1292, 12/5/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In this drunk driving forfeiture case, the city appeals an order granting Knautz’s motion to suppress all of the evidence that police obtained after an investigatory traffic stop. The COA affirms, concluding that the city failed to show that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop.

State v. Q.D.R., 2024AP1067, 12/3/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a matter of first impression, COA rejects Q.D.R.’s statutory construction arguments and holds that funeral costs are recoverable under the juvenile restitution statute.