On Point

Fond du Lac County Dept. of Social Services v. T.P.W., Jr., 2024AP553, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms circuit court’s decision refusing to instruct jury regarding “impossibility” at T.P.W.’s trial to terminate his parental rights because he was incarcerated two months after conditions for return were ordered and his incarceration was not sole basis he failed to meet conditions.

A.K.B. v. J.J.G., 2024AP1116, 10/9/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Jay” appeals from orders terminating his parental rights and denying his postdisposition motion, arguing the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it terminated his parental rights under the voluntary termination statute, Wis. Stat. § 48.41, rather than applying the hearing procedure for involuntary terminations as set forth in § 48.422. The COA affirms.

State v. Kahreem Rashah Wilkins, Sr., 2023AP1385-CR, 10/8/24, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order granting Kahreem Wilkins’ motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle.  The majority found that Wilkins was not seized when police approached the vehicle and saw a firearm in plain view, while the dissent concluded a reasonable person surrounded in his vehicle by four officers would not feel free to leave.

State v. S.O., 2024AP1350, 10/8/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.O. (“Sarah”) challenges the order terminating her parental rights to her son, “Daniel,” arguing that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition when it failed to explicitly consider Daniel’s wishes.

State v. McAdory, 2023AP645-CR, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision, granted 10/7/24; case activity (including briefs)

In a case with potential ramifications for future OWI appeals, SCOW has opened yet another chapter in this ongoing appellate saga.

State v. Ramirez, 2022AP959, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision, granted 10/7/24; reversed 6/27/25 case activity (including briefs)

In a case involving what we labeled as a “big” defense win, SCOW accepts the State’s petition for review asking for clarification of the law pertaining to constitutional speedy trial violations.

Waushara County DHS v. A.M.S., 2024AP730-733, District IV, 10/3/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a dense and fact-specific opinion, COA rejects A.M.S.’s attempts to argue that she was precluded from presenting relevant evidence at her TPR trial and affirms.

State v. Richard A. Hoeft, 2021AP1636, 10/1/24, District 3 (one-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity

Hoeft, pro se, appeals a jury verdict convicting him of fraud on an innkeeper and an order denying his postconviction motion. Hoeft raises numerous claims on appeal, all of which the COA rejects as “largely undeveloped and lacking merit” and affirms.

State v. N.K.B., 2023AP722-CR, 10/1/24, District I (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25 case activity

N.K.B. (referred to as Naomi) was found incompetent to proceed on her criminal charges.  The circuit court authorized involuntarily administering medication to Naomi because she was dangerous.  Naomi argued on appeal that the circuit court did not have authority to authorize involuntarily medicating her based only on dangerousness.  In a recommended-for-publication decision, the COA vacated the circuit court’s order authorizing involuntary medication: “Defendants committed under § 971.14 cannot be involuntarily medicated based on dangerousness absent the commencement of proceedings under ch. 51 or some other statute that authorizes involuntary medication based on the defendant’s dangerousness.”  (¶ 20).

Graham L. Stowe v. Gregory Van Rybroek, No. 23-3345, 8/21/24

This habeas appeal is limited to a facial challenge to the NGI conditional release statute, Wis. Stat. § 971.17(4)(d). The Seventh Circuit rejects Stowe’s argument, concluding that he cannot show that there are no circumstances under which the law’s application would be valid.