On Point

As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication, this time for April, May and June.

State v. T.R.T., 2025AP387-CR, 6/19/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Although it acknowledges uncertainty as to the appropriate standard of review, COA ultimately affirms the circuit court’s order under a clearly erroneous standard.

Curtis L. Walker v. Dan Cromwell, No. 23-2240, 6/16/25

Despite making a “strong case for relief” that his de-facto life sentence for a homicide committed when he was 17 violated the Eighth Amendment, the Seventh Circuit held that Curtis Walker’s habeas petition could not overcome the heavy burden imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to show that the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court because the Court’s precedents were not “a model of clarity.”

State v. Scott R. Dachelet, 2023AP970, 6/25/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

Wisconsin’s seemingly straightforward sentence credit statute – Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(a) – is required to accommodate an infinite variety of scenarios.  Here, the COA addressed whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit on a withheld sentence where probation was revoked while also receiving credit for an imposed and stayed sentence that was revoked.  Because lifting the stay on the imposed and stayed sentence severed the connection between the defendant’s custody and the case for which his sentence was withheld, the Court found that he was not entitled to dual sentence credit.

Waukesha County v. J.A.K., 2024AP2535, 6/25/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another Chapter 51 appeal, COA rejects the usual arguments and affirms.

State v. Richard Leo Mathewson, 2022AP2124-CR, 6/17/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

COA holds that prospective juror’s equivocal answers during voir dire regarding bias against defendant charged with sexual assault of a child is not sufficient to overcome presumption that juror is impartial.

State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2025 WI 21, 6/13/25, reversing COA’s authored, unpublished opinion; case activity

SCOW considers whether an expert witness violated Haseltine‘s anti-vouching rule when she testified that only around one percent of child sexual assault disclosures are false without offering an opinion on whether the victim in this case was telling the truth. A unanimous court overrules Mader and any other court of appeals case that holds statistical evidence alone violates the Haseltine rule.

State v. Nelson Holmes, 2024AP1121, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed Nelson Holmes’ conviction at trial of operating a vehicle under the influence and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, finding that a witness’s statements to a 911 operator were not testimonial and were admissible as present sense  impressions, and that Holmes was not subjected to custodial interrogation when he made incriminating statements to police.

State v. Peter Joseph Idell, 2024AP2230, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA holds that an odor of intoxicants and the driver’s 2009 conviction for OWI established reasonable suspicion to extend stop for expired license plates to investigate OWI.

Rivers v. Guerrero, USSC No. 23-1345, 6/12/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

A unanimous SCOTUS held that a habeas petitioner’s second filing asserting a new claim for relief, submitted after the district court entered judgment with respect to the first filing but while the first filing was pending on appeal, qualifies as a “second or successive” petition and must be approved by the court of appeals before considered by the district court.