On Point: D. Waiver of issues/arguments

State v. Thomas H. Bush (II), 2004 WI App 193, reversed in part, 2005 WI 103
For Bush: Robert G. LeBell

Issue: Whether Bush, on appeal from denial of petition for release from SVP commitment, § 980.09(2), is procedurally barred from challenging the constitutionality of his underlying commitment because he could have raised such challenge in a prior appeal.

Holding:

¶13.

State v. Sylvester Sigarroa, 2004 WI App 16
For Sigarroa: John Pray, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:

¶28. We do not end our discussion here. Instead, we are compelled to admonish the increasing pattern of witness and/or attorney violation of in limine orders. On several occasions, we have spent judicial time and resources to make a very similar admonition. Unfortunately, it appears our reproach has fallen on deaf ears because the pattern of these violations continues.¶29.

 State v. Rick L. Edwards, 2003 WI App 221, PFR filed 10/24/03
For Edwards: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:

¶8. As a threshold matter, we reject Edwards’ challenge to the trial court’s order staying Edwards’ conditional jail time because the order was issued ex parte and without notice. We hold that Edwards failed to raise this issue with sufficient prominence before the trial court.

State v. Shon D. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, PFR filed 2/3/03
For Brown: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Where defendant was charged with theft and operating without consent relating to property and a vehicle that he had permission to take but failed to deliver to the agreed out-of-state destination, his proffer that he drove to a truck stop where he abandoned the vehicle was insufficient to preserve the issue of whether the trial erred in excluding his testimony due to failure to comply with notice of alibi requirement,

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.