On Point

Vernon County v. F.W.R., 2024AP203, District IV, 11/6/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects F.W.R.’s challenges to his involuntary commitment order under Wis. Stat. § 51.20 for alcohol dependence, concluding that a person may be involuntarily committed for treatment for alcoholism, the circuit court followed the proper procedures and the county met its burden to prove that he was drug dependent and dangerous.

M.S. v. R.F., 2024AP814, District I, 11/19/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order granting M.S. (referred to as Michelle) relief from her voluntary termination of parental rights because her decision to terminate was premised on terminating R.F.’s (referred to as Richard) parental rights, and the Court of Appeals in a previous decision remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial on whether grounds existed to terminate Richard’s rights.

N.C. v. R.G., 2024AP996, District II, 11/20/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a TPR appeal with a very unusual posture, COA rejects the petitioner’s appeal given her failure to abide by the rules of appellate procedure.

Richland County DH&HS v. D.M.K., 2022AP2190, District IV, 11/14/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a somewhat rare CHIPS appeal, COA upholds the circuit court’s decision to remove adversary counsel but reverses the court’s order modifying that attorney’s request for fees.

State ex rel. Wis. Dep’t of Corrs., Div. of Cmty. Corrs. v. Hayes, 2023AP1140, petition for review of a per curiam court of appeals decision, granted 11/12/24; case activity (including briefs)

The Division of Hearings and Appeals decided not to revoke Sellers’s probation. DOC, on writ of certiorari to the circuit court, prevailed, and DHA appealed. On appeal, DHA and Sellers asked the COA to affirm DHA’s original decision not to revoke Sellers’s probation. The COA agreed with DHA and Sellers, reversing the circuit court’s order and affirming DHA’s decision not to revoke Sellers’s probation. DOC petitioned for review.

State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2021AP1346-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision, granted 11/12/24; case activity

In a case that we correctly identified as SCOW bait, SCOW accepts review of the State’s petition for review asking to modify the substantive law on vouching as applied by COA. The case is also relevant to determining what is “settled law” in assessing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Van Oudenhoven v. Wis. Dept. of Justice, 2023AP70-FT, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision, granted 11/12/24; dismissed as improvidently granted 6/24/25; case activity (including briefs)

SCOW granted review to determine whether an expunged conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under Wisconsin law qualifies as an “expungement” under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) for purposes of obtaining a firearm.

State v. Lynetta Lake, 2024AP115-CR, 11/12/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Lake pleaded guilty to negligent operation of a motor vehicle and hit and run of an attended vehicle. Following a hearing, the circuit court ordered restitution. Lake filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call two witnesses during the restitution hearing.

Sheboygan County DH&HS v. A.W., Sr., 2024AP907, District II, 10/30/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA rejects A.W., Sr.’s claims that the circuit court failed to take testimony to support the finding of unfitness when he pled no contest to grounds, and that the court’s decision to terminate his parental rights at disposition was an erroneous exercise of discretion.

State v. Joseph Blankenship, 2024AP791-CR, 11/7/24, District IV (one judge decision; not eligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order granting Joseph Blankenship’s motion to suppress because police did not have reasonable suspicion to direct him out of his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests.