Explore in-depth analysis

On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

COA rejects undeveloped challenges to speeding citation and affirms

County of Milwaukee v. Sharon A. Dawson, 2024AP584, 7/22/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although Dawson challenges the actions of the Milwaukee Police in enforcing the traffic code as racial profiling, her her pro se arguments are too poorly pleaded for the Court to address them.

Read full article >

SCOW affirms defense win in revocation case on deferential standard of review

State ex rel. Wis. Dep’t of Corrs., Div. of Cmty. Corrs. v. Hayes, 2023AP1140, affirming a per curiam court of appeals decision, case activity (including briefs)

The Division of Hearings and Appeals decided not to revoke Sellers’s probation. DOC, on writ of certiorari to the circuit court, prevailed, and DHA appealed. On appeal, DHA and Sellers asked the COA to affirm DHA’s original decision not to revoke Sellers’s probation.

Read full article >

COA affirms TPR disposition, holds circuit court properly exercised discretion as to substantial relationship factor

Oneida County v. J.B., 2025AP213, 7/1/25, District III (one judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

J.B. (“Joseph”) appeals the disposition terminating his parental rights to his son, “Isaac,” arguing that the circuit court failed to explicitly consider whether Isaac had substantial relationships with Joseph and members of his family. COA rejects Joseph’s arguments and affirms.

Isaac was five years old at the time of the jury trial on grounds and dispositional hearing.

Read full article >

COA: In TPR case, trial counsel’s performance was deficient for not timely filing affidavits opposing summary judgment, but respondent not prejudiced.

Jackson County Dept. of Health & Human Services v. A.M.N., 2024AP1166, 7/10/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA finds counsel’s performance deficient for failing to timely file affidavits opposing Jackson County’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding its petition to terminate A.M.N.’s parental rights. But A.M.N. was not prejudiced because there is no reasonable probability that the affidavits would have created a genuine issue of material fact whether she had good cause for failing to contact or communicate with her daughter,

Read full article >

COA affirms order continuing protective placement

Washburn County v. D.C.R., 2024AP2443-FT, 7/8/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

While D.C.R. wins some minor victories in this appeal, ultimately COA rejects his sufficiency challenges and affirms.

In this appeal from an order continuing a protective placement after an annual review, COA addresses two sufficiency challenges:

Primary Need for Residential Care and Custody

Under the statute, the County needed to prove that “Dwight” had “a primary need for residential care and custody.” § 55.08(1)(a).

Read full article >

COA calculates discharge date on sentences for crimes committed between 1999 and 2003 in published case.

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Christopher P. Kawleski v. State, 2022AP1129, 7/3/25, District IV, (recommended for publication); case activity

COA recommends publication in a case addressing how to calculate the maximum discharge date for a defendant sentenced to a bifurcated sentence on a felony between 1999 and 2003 upon release from reconfinement after extended supervision was revoked.

Read full article >

COA holds that protective placement may be continued based on evidence from previous hearings provided the evidence was “adjudicated.”

Pierce County v. P.C.A., 2024AP1367, 7/1/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

While affirming the circuit court continuing a protective placement order under Chapter 55 after a due process hearing (known as a Watts hearing), the COA clarified that, following previous due process hearings, documentary evidence that was admitted, and testimony that was accepted by the circuit court and incorporated into its findings, may be considered at subsequent due process hearings. 

Read full article >

Defense win: COA reverses parts of juvenile restitution order

State v. C.J.L.,  2024AP1917, 7/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

C.J.L. contests part of the restitution ordered in his juvenile case related to a theft and break in at a dance studio–restitution for a surveillance subscription purchased after the theft, and for damages to the studio’s dance floor. Because the juvenile statute, Wis. Stat. § 938.34(5)(a), permits restitution for physical injury to a person or damage to property only, the COA agrees with C.J.L. and reverses the restitution order.

Read full article >

In 5-1-1 decision, SCOW affirms COA decision rejecting domestic violence victim’s invocation of coercion defense

State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2025 WI 34, 7/3/25, affirming an unpublished decision from COA; case activity

Faced with a unique fact pattern arising from an OWI prosecution, SCOW interprets Wisconsin’s coercion defense and finds that Stetzer is unable to prevail, regardless of the clearly sympathetic facts presented.

Read full article >

SCOW affirms circuit court’s authority to reinstate previously dismissed conviction under 346.63(1)

State v. Carl L. McAdory, 2025 WI 30, 7/1/25, case activity

A unanimous SCOW held that the circuit court had authority under Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(c) to reinstate Carl McAdory’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in his blood, which was dismissed when he was also convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance that arose out of the same incident or occurrence, after the OWI conviction was vacated on appeal.  The Court also rejected McAdory’s claims that the State forfeited the right to seek reinstatement by not raising the issue on his appeal from his OWI conviction, that the circuit court did not comply with the COA’s mandate, and that he was subjected to double jeopardy.

Read full article >

On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].

On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.