On Point

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.

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.