On Point

In August and September, COA released a number of published decisions:

State v. A.M.Y., 2024AP1162, 9/26/24, District 4 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

A.M.Y. appealed the TPR order related to her daughter, Y.R.C.Y., arguing that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by granting default judgment against her as to grounds for termination. The COA agrees, as the circuit court failed to take evidence sufficient to show that grounds for termination existed prior to granting default judgment, and the state fails to show the error was harmless.

State v. Sharpe, 2021AP1543 & 2022AP307, 9/24/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity here and here

COA determines defendant arrested for OWI did not meet burden to show that he was unable to make knowing and intelligent choice about submitting to breath test when officers misinformed him that he would be charged with a first-offense OWI.  COA rejects facial and as-applied challenge to IID statute based on Dormant Commerce Clause.

Village of Greendale v. Stacey King, 2023AP503, 9/17/24, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

King appeals her OWI first judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, that the circuit court based its rulings on bias against her instead of on the relevant law, and that the field sobriety test should not have been presented to the jury. The COA rejects these arguments and affirms.

State v. Mark T. Solheim, 2024AP239, District II, 9/18/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In its decision reversing the circuit court’s order suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant for a blood draw, the Court of Appeals reminds that Franks and its Wisconsin counterpart Anderson require defendants challenging the veracity of an affidavit in support of a search warrant to do more than show the affidavit contained false information, but also that the officer knew the information was false at the time it was asserted and included it intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

State v. Albert A. Terhune, 2023AP353, 9/19/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In a somewhat complicated OWI appeal, COA ultimately affirms under well-settled legal standards.

A.M.D. v. G.R.B., Jr., 2024AP1071, District II, 9/18/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

G.R.B. (“Bartel”) appeals an order terminating his parental rights, raising a medley of challenges. Although COA acknowledges that its prior precedent sent “mixed signals” to litigants on at least one of the issues, it ultimately rejects all of G.R.B.’s arguments and affirms.

Christopher Roalson v. Jon Noble, No. 22-2833, 8/28/24

The Seventh Circuit affirms an order denying habeas relief, applying pre-Smith law on the confrontation clause, as the underlying WI COA decision dates back to 2014. The Court concludes that the rule the COA applied–“one expert cannot act as a mere conduit for the opinion of another” and must instead “render[] her own expert opinion”–did not contradict Melendez-Diaz or Bullcoming, the established precedent at the time.

State v. H.C., 2023AP1950, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/11/24; reversed 6/3/25; case activity (including briefs)

In a seemingly inevitable grant given a flood of appeals raising an identical issue, SCOW has accepted review of this unpublished TPR decision, which held–for the first time in Wisconsin law–that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at the dispositional phase of a TPR.

State v. B.M., 2024AP414, District I, 9/10/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a replay of last week’s decision in N.H., on which we posted here, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order denying B.M.’s motion to withdraw her no-contest plea to the grounds of the petition to terminate her parental rights.