On Point: 4. Specific issues

State v. William E. Draughon III, 2005 WI App 162, (AG’s) PFR filed
For Draughton: Stephen L. Miller

Issue/Holding: ¶8 n. 2:

We observe that Draughon did not object to the jury instruction when provided the opportunity by the circuit court. Draughon nonetheless raises his objection here under color of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim as well as his claim that the real controversy was not fully tried.

Village of Trempeleau v. Mike R. Mikrut, 2004 WI 79, affirming unpublished decision

Issue/Holding: (Emphasis supplied)

¶15. Mikrut did not raise his challenge to the circuit court’s competency until long after the judgment against him had been upheld on appeal. The circuit court and the court of appeals therefore held that the argument was waived. ……

¶18. Wisconsin case law is inconsistent on the question of whether a challenge to the circuit court’s competency is subject to the common-law rule of waiver.

State v. Johnnie Carprue, 2004 WI 111, reversing 2003 WI App 148, 266 Wis. 2d 168, 667 N.W.2d 800
For Carprue: Stephanie G. Rapkin

Issue/Holding:

¶34 Subsection (3) of § 906.14 authorizes objections, and it “defers the requirement of a timely objection . . . to the next available opportunity when the jury is not present.” Id. R202. This subsection appears to focus more on situations where the judge questions witnesses in front of a jury than where a judge questions a witness in a bench trial or outside the presence of a jury.¶35 Given the explicit authority to object to a judge’s action,

State v. Obea S. Hayes, 2004 WI 80, affirming 2003 WI App 99, 264 Wis. 2d 377, 663 N.W.2d 351
For Hayes: Philip J. Brehm

Issue: Whether challenge to sufficiency of evidence must be raised during trial in order to preserve the right to raise the challenge on appeal.
Holding: State v. Gomez, 179 Wis. 2d 400, 507 N.W.2d 378 (Ct.

State v. Rex E. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20, PFR filed 1/8/04
For Wollenberg: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶12. Second, assuming this was a DPA, Wollenberg claims the judgment is void because the agreement was never in writing. Wollenberg, however, invited the error he alleges, and we normally will not review invited error. See Atkinson v. Mentzel,

State v. James S. Riedel, 2003 WI App 18, PFR filed 1/27/03
For Riedel: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding:

¶8. At the outset, we reject the State’s threshold argument that Riedel is precluded from challenging the trial court’s suppression ruling based on Riedel’s conviction on the OWI charge and the dismissal of the PAC charge. The State reasons that Riedel’s appeal lacks a justiciable controversy because he has failed to argue that he would not have pled to the OWI charge if the trial court had granted the suppression motion or that the OWI evidence would have been insufficient absent the blood test results.

 State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee

Issue/Holding: Although a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is not waived by a guilty plea (because such a defect would go to subject matter jurisdiction, something not subject to waiver), an “as applied” challenged is waived by the plea. ¶46.

State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶27 … Here, Grindemann did object to the prosecutor’s mention of uncharged offenses at sentencing, but the objection was based on the lack of evidence ‘properly before the court,’ not on any claim that the State was violating either the terms or the ‘spirit’ of the plea agreement.

State v. Douglas J. Lasky, 2002 WI App 126, PFR filed 5/16/02
For Lasky: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Claim of “statutory double jeopardy,” § 939.71, not barred by guilty plea waiver rule; court therefore may consider merits of whether elements of federal bank robbery conviction are the same, and therefore preclude prosecution of, state armed robbery.

State v. Anthony J. Randle, 2002 WI App 116, PFR filed 4/2/02
For Randle: Paul G. Bonneson

Issue: Whether a territorial jurisdiction objection (that none of the constitutent elements occurred in the state, § 939.03(1)) is waived by guilty plea to a lesser offense.
Holding:

¶14 In this case, we need not decide whether a defendant may waive territorial jurisdiction altogether-that is, when an issue arises as to whether the charging document charges a crime that is committed wholly outside the territorial jurisdiction of Wisconsin.