On Point

State ex rel. Antonio S. Davis v. Circuit Court for Dane County, the Honorable Ellen K. Berz and State of Wisconsin, 2024 WI 14, 3/26/24; case activity

A majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirms the court of appeals’ denial of Davis’ petition for a supervisory writ after concluding the the circuit court had no “plain duty” to treat Davis’ request for substitution as timely under Wis. Stat. § 971.20(4). The court also uses the decision to clarify that a petition for a supervisory writ is not the preferred vehicle to seek appellate review of a circuit court’s denial of a request for substitution that was filed after arraignment. Op, ¶11.

State v. Iain A. Johnson, 2022AP389-CR, 4/2/24, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Although COA concedes this is a “close case,” it nevertheless concludes that the evidence satisfies the relatively low burden for reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop.

Dane County Department of Human Services v. J.K., 2023AP1946-47, 3/28/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a TPR appeal presenting multiple issues, COA rejects all of J.K.’s arguments and affirms.

State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2023AP874-CR, 3/27/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted; affirmed 7/3/25 case activity

In a difficult case demonstrating the stringent nature of Wisconsin’s coercion defense, COA affirms the circuit court’s decision that the defense did not apply to Stetzer’s conduct, notwithstanding a medley of uniquely sympathetic facts.

Racine County v. C.B., 2023AP2018-FT, 3/20/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a factually-specific appeal of a recommitment order, COA rejects all of C.B.’s arguments and affirms.

State v. Allan Nathan Carroll, Jr. A/K/A/ U’si Ch-ab, 2023AP870, 3/20/24, District 2 (one-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity

Carroll, Jr., a.k.a. Ch-ab, pro se, appeals a jury verdict convicting him of resisting or obstructing an officer. Ch-ab raises two claims on appeal: (1) that his constitutional rights were violated during a traffic stop that led to his arrest and conviction and (2) that his “status as an ‘Indigenous Aborigine American’ relieved him of the obligation to comply with Wisconsin law requiring that motor vehicles operating on Wisconsin roads be registered and display license plates.” The court rejects his arguments on appeal and affirms.

State v. K.P., 2023AP2404-06, 3/19/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

K.P. (“Kevin”) challenged the circuit court’s order terminating his parental rights on two grounds: (1) that his own testimony demostrated he had a substantial relationship with his three children and (2) because there was a lack of evidence concerning the childrens’ wishes. The court of appeals concludes that is is “clear” the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in determining that terminating Kevin’s parental rights to his children was in their best interests.

State v. Asif Ahmed, 2023AP1796, 3/14/24, District IV (one-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity

Ahmed raises a few different arguments challenging the circuit court’s decision that he improperly refused to submit to a OWI blood draw, but the court of appeals rejects them all, agrees probable cause existed to arrest Ahmed for OWI, and affirms.

Kenosha County DCFS v. J.M.C. III, 2023AP1382, 3/13/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In affirming the termination of J.M.C.’s parental rights to his daughter, the court holds that (1) the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying J.M.C.’s request for a new attorney and (2) the circuit court’s failure to take testimony in support of J.M.C.’s no contest plea to grounds was harmless.

Sheboygan County DH & HS v. A.P., 2023AP1382, 2/7/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Faced with the department’s motion for summary judgment on grounds of abandonment, counsel for A.P filed a brief in opposition and attached two exhibits, but failed to file any affidavits. Postdisposition and on appeal, A.P. argues that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to obtain or file an affidavit in opposition to the department’s motion and for not informing A.P. of the dire need for counsel to do so. The court affirms the rejection of A.P.’s claims and faults A.P. for asking to receive the benefit of her own error under the “doctrine of invited error.” Op., ¶27.