On Point: D. Waiver of issues/arguments

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. Jonathan J. English-Lancaster, 2002 WI App 74, PFR filed 3/22/02
For English-Lancaster: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether defendant waived an objection to the violation of an in limine order, by waiting until a recess to enter an objection.

Holding:

¶17. When the State violated the stipulation and the court’s order at trial, English- Lancaster did not immediately object. Instead,

State v. Jimmie Davison, 2002 WI App 109, reversed on other grounds, 2003 WI 89
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: A guilty plea doesn’t waive a facially valid multiplicity claim. ¶13.The supreme court subsequently stated: “Because Davison’s multiplicity objection fails on the merits, we need not and do not decide whether, by pleading guilty, he waived his right to raise this claim,”

State v. Paul Venema, 2002 WI App 202
For Venema: Randall R. Garczynski

Issue/Holding: Failure to object to portions of closing argument didn’t waive right to challenge them on appeal, where defendant obtained a “definitive pretrial ruling” which “served to preserve (his) position for appeal.” ¶25 n. 9.

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. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02
For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Reviewing court may address merits of attack on sentence based on inaccurate information, notwithstanding absence of contemporaneous objection. ¶25. It is appropriate here for the court to overlook waiver, where the state concedes that it can’t support the information now challenged; and defendant’s postconviction motion showed that information was inaccurate and also established a basis for believing that he didn’t have an adequate opportunity to refute the information.

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.

State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Judicial estoppel requires that the party’s position be completely adopted. (Johnson therefore not estopped from challenging restitution amount he agreed to below because he also asked for probation but was given some jail time.) ¶24.