On Point

State v. A.C.S, 2024AP1634, 9/10/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s dispositional order entered after a jury found “Anna’s” child was in need of protection or services (CHIPS) and ordered a new trial because the court excluded evidence that Anna executed a power of attorney to guarantee the child’s care while she was in custody.

Buckle up! August was a busy month for the 7th, with many interesting cases decided including a defense lawyer telling the jury he believed the child victim during closing arguments, a couple of habeas cases, a discussion on the difference between direct and other acts evidence, false arrest for suspected animal abuse, an interesting decision on counsel’s obligation to litigate unsettled law, and so much more!

Noem v. Perdomo, USSC No. 25A169, 9/8/2025, Scotusblog page

SCOTUS stayed a district court’s order enjoining immigration agents from conducting stops in the Los Angeles area unless the agent has reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is within the United States in violation of immigration law.

Sheboygan County DH & HS v. N.H. & E.H., 2025AP903-FT, 9/10/25, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Luke” appeals from an order denying his request to change his placement back to his father’s home in a CHIPS case. COA affirms.

State v. M.W., 2025AP2364 &2365 , 9/3/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

M.W. appeals the orders terminating her parental rights to two of her children, “Liam” and “Karen,” and the order denying her motion for postdisposition relief. She argues that her trial counsel was ineffective when by failing object to multiple instances of hearsay, and her due process
rights were violated when the court ruled that she could not introduce evidence at trial that another child remained in her care. COA affirms.

State v. G.W., 2025AP1214, 9/3/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

G.W. appeals from the circuit court’s order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, arguing that the circuit court denied him due process and erroneously exercised its discretion when it did not allow him to appear virtually at the dispositional hearing. COA affirms.

OLR v. Peter J. Kovac, 2024AP1511-D, 8/15/25, per curiam decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (in its disciplinary capacity).

In a decision overlapping with our focus on criminal appeals, SCOW revokes the license of a criminal defense attorney whose misconduct covers both trial and postconviction representation of two clients.

Grant County v. T.L.M., 2025AP500, 8/28/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

T.L.M. challenges her recommitment, arguing that the circuit court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence over her objection, and that the court failed to make the required factual findings to support the commitment. COA concludes that although the circuit court erroneously admitted some hearsay, the error was harmless, and that the circuit court satisfied the demands of Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.

State v. Michael R. Meton, 2025AP141-CR, 8/27/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Meton challenges the judgment convicting him of operating with a prohibited alcohol content, 2nd offense. He argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the blood result after police administered a preliminary breath test without first asking for his consent. COA agrees with the circuit court that suppression of the blood draw because police had independent grounds apart from the PBT to arrest Meton on suspicion of operating while intoxicated.

State v. Rebecca Lea Kamm, 2024AP1944-CR, 8/28/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA held that the defendant forfeited her argument that the State did not comply with Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1) by not disclosing to her counsel video evidence within a reasonable time before trial.  Although the evidence was not provided to counsel until the morning of trial, the issue was forfeited because counsel did not object to its admission.