On Point

Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2024AP1390, petition for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, granted 11/17/25; case activity

SCOW granted R.D.T.’s petition for review to address: 1) whether the appeal from his recommitment is moot where the commitment expired but he remained liable for the costs of care and subject to a firearm ban; and 2) whether the circuit court made sufficient factual findings grounded in admissible evidence to support R.D.T.’s recommitment. 

State v. Max Bell, 2024AP1923-CR, 2024AP1924-CR, & 2024AP1925-CR, 11/13/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Whether to join cases for trial is a separate inquiry from whether to sever cases that have been joined.  While the severance subsection of the joinder statute, Wis. Stat. § 971.12(3), directs the circuit court to sever charges if a party is prejudiced by joinder, the circuit court is not required by statute to consider prejudice when determining whether charges should be joined.  See Wis. Stat. § 971.12(1),(4).  Nevertheless, the COA held in a decision recommended for publication that a circuit court is permitted to consider prejudice when making its initial joinder decision.  The COA affirmed joinder of Max Bell’s charges for trial and his subsequent convictions in each case.

Terence L. Jannke v. Michael Gierach, No. 23-2485, 11/17/25

In yet another appeal that reiterates the hoops through which petitioners must jump, the Court rejects Jannke’s claims on procedural grounds and affirms.

Kenosha County v. V.L.W., 2025AP1914, 11/12/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects “Victor’s” arguments on appeal, which are all based on the continuing CHIPS “substantial likelihood” provision applying in his case. COA concludes that Victor did not prove this provision, which requires that the has been placed outside the home for less than 15 of the most recent 22 months, should apply.

State v. A.A., 2025AP1907, 11/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case involving a unique waiver posture, COA concludes that the circuit court correctly interpreted the statutes when it used a waiver decision in another county to exempt A.A. from juvenile jurisdiction.

State v. Richard T. Weske, 2025AP154-CR, 11/5/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

Weske appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence on the basis that the investigatory traffic stop constituted an unreasonable seizure because the officer was outside his jurisdiction and was therefore without authority to conduct the stop. COA affirms, concluding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop for a suspected OWI, and Weske conceded that the officer had the authority to do so outside his jurisdiction under Wis. Stat. § 349.03(4).

State v. Angela R. Joski, 2023AP1371-CR, 10/29/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

The state appealed Joski’s early release under Wis. Stat. § 973.195, arguing that pursuant to State v. Gramza, 2020 WI App 81, ¶24, 395 Wis. 2d 215, 952 N.W.2d 836, Joski must fully serve the mandatory minimum three-year term of initial confinement prescribed by Wis. Stat. § 346.65. COA agrees due to Gramza‘s interpretation, and reverses.

Trempealeau County v. S.K., 2025AP645, 11/4/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s order to extend “Sharon’s” involuntary commitment.  Although the County presented evidence that Sharon would stop taking medication to treat her schizophrenia if she were not committed, the evidence to support her current dangerousness was conclusory.

State v. Tommy Jay Cross, 2023AP2013-CR, 11/4/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In an opinion that might remind some readers of their first year of law school, COA outlines the basic principles of Wisconsin’s self-defense doctrine and holds that the jury was given inaccurate instructions on the subject as it pertains to defense of others.

La Crosse County and S.A.A. v. M.A., 2025AP269, 10/30/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another protective placement win, COA agrees that the County’s evidence failed to satisfy the standards and reverses.