On Point

State v. Reichert, 2023AP1224, 8/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Roxanne Reichert appealed from a judgment of conviction after she pled no contest to operating a vehicle under the influence.  She argued that the circuit court erred when it denied her motion to suppress evidence seized after she was stopped in her vehicle.  The Court of Appeals affirmed and found that: 1) police were justified to stop Reichert as a community caretaking function; and 2) police had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate Reichert for criminal activity, including OWI.

State v. Thatcher R. Sehrbrock, 2022AP2153-CR, 8/8/24, District IV (authored); case activity

Sehrbrock, convicted of robbery with use of force as PTAC, appeals the judgment of conviction and order denying his postconviction motion in which he challenged a condition of probation requiring that an ignition interlock device be installed on any motor vehicle that he owns or operates. He argued that the IID condition was unreasonable and its term was harsh and excessive. The COA affirms in a 2-1 decision.

State v. Kenneth W. Hill, 2022AP1718-CR, 8/6/24, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

The state appealed after the circuit court denied its motion seeking to admit Hill’s 1984 conviction from Minnesota for “criminal sexual conduct in the first degree” pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2)(b)2. at his trials for two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child. The court of appeals reverses and remands with directions, outlining the relevant analysis, holding that the admissible evidence includes only the fact of the conviction, not the underlying details of the prior case, and concluding that the Sullivan analysis does not apply. (¶2).

State v. Percy Antione Robinson, 2020AP1728-CR, 8/6/24, District I (recommended for publication); case activity

In a published decision that criminal practitioners have been waiting on for years, COA holds that a CR-215 probable cause procedure used to satisfy the requirements of Riverside triggers the attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

State v. T.L., 2024AP859-863, 8/1/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another TPR appeal challenging the circuit court’s discretionary termination order, COA affirms given the imposing standard of review.

In May, June and July COA released a number of published decisions:

State v. J.C., 2024AP17, 7/30/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Jacob” appealed from an order granting the state’s waiver petition on charges of first-degree reckless injury, first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and possession of a dangerous weapon. The COA affirms.

State v. Kruckenberg Anderson, 2023AP396-CR, 7/25/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

The tragic death of a newborn baby in the bucolic countryside of southwest Wisconsin prompted aggressive interrogation techniques by law enforcement that the Court of Appeals considered coercive in light of the suspect’s age of 16.  But the court found that a reasonable 16-year old would have felt free to leave when the police told him repeatedly he was not under arrest and did not have to answer questions; law enforcement therefore did not have to advise the suspect of his Miranda rights.  The COA affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court’s order suppressing the defendant’s statements.

Dane County v. J.B., 2024AP985, 7/25/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Because J.B.’s request that COA reweigh the dispositional factors in her favor is precluded by governing case law, COA affirms.

Brown County v. J.D.T., 2023AP2339, 7/23/24, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.D.T. challenges the his commitment under ch. 51 (second and third standards). The COA concludes that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the third standard, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., and therefore does not address the second standard.