On Point

K.W. & D.W. v. S.L., 2023AP1582, 2/13/24, District 3 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The summary judgment issue here turned on one simple question: did a genuine issue of fact exist as to whether S.L. (“Susan”) knew or could have reasonably discovered the whereabouts of her son (Alex) during the relevant period of alleged abandonment? Upon consideration of Susan’s multiple affidavits and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Susan, as the non-moving party, the court of appeals reverses the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment on grounds.

State v. E.M.A., 2023AP2043-45, 1/30/24, District 1 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

E.M.A.’s (“Emma’s) challenge to the court’s exercise of discretion at disposition fails and the court of appeals concludes the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating Emma’s parental rights to her three children.

State v. Jacob Karl Schindler, 2023AP755, 1/25/24, District 4 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Schindler appeals from an order revoking his operating privileges after he refused to submit to chemical testing of his blood pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law. The court of appeals affirms after concluding that the arresting deputy had probable cause to believe Schindler operated a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

State v. Kasey Ann Gomolla, 2022AP199-CR, 2/6/24, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity

Even if the court of appeals had not recommended this decision for publication, Gomolla’s case seems destined for further review. While the facts here are somewhat distinguishable from State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64, Cross’ counter-intuitive holding, even with arguably “better” facts, seems to have hamstringed the court of appeals from acknowledging that a plea cannot be said to be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” if the defendant does not know the correct maximum penalty. If we had to guess, SCOW will soon be considering whether to reconsider, limit, or overrule Cross. 

State v. M.D.B., Jr., 2023AP620, 2/6/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The State’s efforts to revive this delinquency case on appeal fail, as they are unable to persuade COA that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in dismissing the petition with prejudice for failure to comply with a statutory deadline.

State v. Kevin A. Terry, 2023AP1053-CR, 1/31/24, District II (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In yet another “broken taillight” OWI, COA holds that the officer had reasonable suspicion to seize Terry based on a relatively minor vehicle malfunction.

Winnebago County v. D.S., 2023AP1484, 1/24/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a fact-dependent appeal, COA holds that the evidence was sufficient and the trial court’s findings adequate to uphold this 51 extension order.

Winnebago County v. T.M.G., 2023AP681, 1/24/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite T.M.G.’s challenges, COA affirms this extension and related medication order applying what it believes to be well-settled precedent.

State v. Joshua L. Thering, 2023AP1253, 1/23/24, District 4 (1-judge decision, not eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

While the court of appeals agrees the facts in Thering’s case are “similar in significant respects” to the SCOW-approved police encounter in County of Grant v. Vogt, 2014 WI 76, 356 Wis. 2d 343, 850 N.W.2d 253, the court concludes that the totality of the circumstances in Thering’s case “involved a meaningfully greater show of authority by police than in Vogt,” which was characterized as a “close case.” Therefore, the court reverses the circuit court’s order denying Thering’s motion to suppress and his judgment of conviction for OWI 2nd.

State v. Troy Allen Shaw, 2023AP697, 1/24/24, District II (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Shaw’s challenge to improper closing argument persuades COA that the prosecutor erred, but fails to overcome the imposing tests for plain and harmless error.