On Point

Kelly R. Rose v. C.R.R., 2024AP1450, 7/2/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In an interesting statutory construction appeal, COA holds that “a guardian’s determination that denying contact with a family member is in the ward’s best interest is not cause for court action against a guardian.”

State v. Samuel R. Osornio, 2024AP2368-CR, 6/26/25, District 4, (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Osornio argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the state charged him with both reckless homicide by delivery of heroin, based on allegations that he delivered heroin to A.B. and A.B. fatally overdosed on this heroin, and, separately, with delivery of the same heroin to A.B. (¶1). COA reverses, concluding that the two counts were multiplicitous, as Osornio was exposed to the potential for punishment twice for the same offense of delivering heroin to A.B. (¶3).

Michael Williams v. Michael Meisner, No. 23-3268, 6/16/25

In a case that likely signals the end of a long legal battle over a Wisconsin jury instruction telling jurors to “search for the truth,” the Seventh Circuit holds that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.

Service Employees International Union Healthcare Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 2025 WI 29, 6/27/25, on bypass from the court of appeals; case activity

In a unanimous non-criminal appeal, four justices issue a concurrence signaling their willingness to revisit Wisconsin’s method of statutory construction as set forth in Kalal. 

State v. Luis A. Ramirez, 2025 WI 28, 6/27/25, reversing a published decision from COA; case activity

When this case was issued in COA, we got excited and informed our readers that this “big defense win” was an important decision on the speedy trial right. However, SCOW now unanimously reverses in favor of the State.

As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication, this time for April, May and June.

State v. T.R.T., 2025AP387-CR, 6/19/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Although it acknowledges uncertainty as to the appropriate standard of review, COA ultimately affirms the circuit court’s order under a clearly erroneous standard.

Curtis L. Walker v. Dan Cromwell, No. 23-2240, 6/16/25

Despite making a “strong case for relief” that his de-facto life sentence for a homicide committed when he was 17 violated the Eighth Amendment, the Seventh Circuit held that Curtis Walker’s habeas petition could not overcome the heavy burden imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to show that the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court because the Court’s precedents were not “a model of clarity.”

State v. Scott R. Dachelet, 2023AP970, 6/25/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

Wisconsin’s seemingly straightforward sentence credit statute – Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(a) – is required to accommodate an infinite variety of scenarios.  Here, the COA addressed whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit on a withheld sentence where probation was revoked while also receiving credit for an imposed and stayed sentence that was revoked.  Because lifting the stay on the imposed and stayed sentence severed the connection between the defendant’s custody and the case for which his sentence was withheld, the Court found that he was not entitled to dual sentence credit.

Waukesha County v. J.A.K., 2024AP2535, 6/25/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another Chapter 51 appeal, COA rejects the usual arguments and affirms.