On Point

William T. Case v. Montana, USSC No. 24-624, certiorari granted 6/2/25

SCOTUS added to its docket when it accepted an increasingly rare grant from state criminal proceedings in this Fourth Amendment case:

Question presented:

Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.

State v. Roger A. Minck, 2022AP2292-CR, 5/28/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In a case of first impression, the COA held in a decision recommended for publication that hiding a corpse with intent to conceal a crime under Wis. Stat. § 940.11(2) requires the State to prove the defendant  intended to conceal any crime, not a crime related to the victim’s homicide.  The COA found the evidence sufficient to affirm the jury’s verdict finding Roger Minck guilty of hiding a corpse.

State v. Daniel J. Rejholec, 2023AP2192-CR, 5/28/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In a consequential appeal, COA holds that allocution statements are admissible evidence after a plea has been withdrawn.

State v. Peter J. Long, 2024AP1249-CR, 5/28/25, District II (not recommended for publication); case activity

While Long’s appeal presents some superficially interesting legal issues, ultimately COA’s dereference to the circuit court’s underlying factual findings govern the outcome here.

State v. Daecorion J. Robinson, 2022AP2087-CR, 5/28/25, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In a rare “causal nexus” win, 2 judges in D1 agree that the circuit court’s order was infirm. Under the text of the restitution statute, Robinson’s aiding a felon does not make him liable for the consequences of that felon’s underlying criminal conduct.

Wisconsin Judicial Commision v. Honorable Ellen K. Berz, 2024AP2038-J, 5/27/2025, (per curiam judicial discipline case)

In a unanimous decision, SCOW agrees that a judge’s “intemperate” response to an adjournment request and attempt to personally arrest a criminal defendant violated the applicable rules and merited the sanction of suspension without pay.

State v. Donaven C. Sprague, 2022AP876-CR, 5/20/25, District III (not recommended for publication), case activity

In the second defense win this week on appeal from a Barron County conviction (see Wooldridge), the COA vacated Donaven Sprague’s sentence to 10 years of initial confinement for repeated sexual assault of a child because the State breached its plea agreement to recommend no more than 5 years of initial confinement and did not cure the breach.  The Court also found that Sprague received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not inform him that resentencing before a different judge was a remedy for the State’s breach.  The Court remanded the case directing the circuit court to schedule a resentencing for Sprague before a different judge.

Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2024AP1195, petition for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, granted 5/122/25; case activity

In yet another interesting Chapter 51 appeal, SCOW signals its willingness to resolve whether a colloquy is required before accepting a stipulation to an involuntary mental commitment order (and accompanying involuntary med order)–an issue which has recurred since 2005.

Outagamie County v. M.J.B., 2024AP250, 5/20/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In a case clarifying a legal question that has persisted for years in 51 litigation, COA holds that when the examiners do not satisfy the statutorily-imposed deadline for filing their reports in connection with a final hearing in an original commitment proceeding, the circuit court can lose competency.

State of Wisconsin v. F.S.-E., 2054AP10, District I, 5/20/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA rejects F.S.-E.’s claim that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his no contest plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. It holds that there is no requirement that the circuit court pause after explaining each right during the plea colloquy to inquire as to F.S.-E.’s understand of that particular right.