On Point

State v. Kordell Grady, 2025 WI 22, 6/13/25, affirming COA’s summary disposition order; case activity

Although SCOW presumably took this case to clarify the rules of Zoom court–and the oral argument focused intensely on such questions–SCOW ultimately opts to issue a decision which makes no substantive law and denies relief based on what it claims is a deferential review of the circuit court’s factual findings.

State v. Nicholas J. Nero, 2023AP543, District III, 6/10/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA found that law enforcement had probable cause that Nicholas Nero was driving under the influence, independent from his compelled statement to his probation officer and un-Mirandized statement to a deputy sheriff, and therefore affirmed the circuit court’s order denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood draw.  The COA also found that Nero’s claims for ineffective assistance of counsel at trial were conclusory and undeveloped.

State v. Derek J. Jarvi 2023AP2136-CR, 6/12/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Despite the State’s efforts to overturn Jarvi’s postconviction win of a new trial, the court of appeals rejects the State’s evidentiary arguments and holds that it failed to prove harmless error in this case.

State v. T.A.W., 2025AP437-CR, 6/3/25, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

Although the charges against T.A.W. — resisting an officer causing soft tissue injury and retail theft — are not “serious crimes” under Wis. Stat. § 969.08, which specifies procedures for pretrial release, the COA found that the State met its burden to show an important governmental interest in forcibly medicating T.A.W. to competency under the aggravated circumstances of the case.

We made the mistake of waiting to consolidate our monthly digest given the slow pace of the court. Turns out there’s a lot to post on! This installment features an interesting decision on child porn possession, multiple alleged Franks violations,  some Fourth Amendment wrangling, disturbing prisoner abuse in Wisconsin institutions, and a handful of non-Wisconsin habeas cases!

State v. Nicholas J. Bergner, 2024AP1875, District I, 6/3/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Nicolas Bergner’s postconviction motion for a new trial.  Although the circuit court did not follow the procedure required by SCOW in Tucker for using a numbers-only jury selection process, to which trial counsel did not object, Bergner was not prejudiced.

State v. Benny Burgos, 2024AP1497-CR, 6/3/25, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In an interesting appeal presenting questions of statutory construction and appellate jurisdiction, COA uses principles of equity to reach the merits and reverses in Burgos’s favor.

State v. Johnny Ray Martin, 2023AP603, 5/28/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects Martin’s claims that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by denying his attempt to impeach the alleged victim with her prior recantation of a separate incident, and that defense counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately investigate the recantation, prepare to address the recantation at trial, and argue the issue under the correct legal theory.

State v. H.C., 2025 WI 20, 6/3/25, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

In a decision that has been awaited by TPR practitioners, all seven justices affirm COA’s mandate, with five justices joining in a majority opinion which concludes there is no burden of proof applicable at a dispositional hearing.

City of Monona v. Erick J. Erickson, 2024AP312, District IV, 5/30/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed Erick J. Erickson’s conviction following a bench trial for operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration and revocation of his operating privileges because he unreasonably refused to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT).  COA found that the circuit court correctly denied Erickson’s motion to suppress because police had probable cause to request the PBT and probable cause to arrest Erickson.