On Point blog, page 23 of 25
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Waiver – Guilty Plea Rule
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 took review on this threshold issue: “First, does a criminal defendant who pleads guilty to several crimes in a negotiated plea agreement waive the right to raise a multiplicity claim against one of the resulting convictions?” ¶2.
Suppression Hearing – State’s Waiver
State v. Harold C. Mikkelson, 2002 WI App 152
For Mikkelson: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the state waived an appellate argument in opposition to suppression by not raising it at the suppression hearing.
Holding:
¶14 “The waiver rule serves several important objectives. Raising issues at the [circuit] court level allows the …. court to correct or avoid the alleged error in the first place,
Guilty Plea waiver Rule – Issues Waived — Double Jeopardy
State v. Jimmie Davison, 2002 WI App 109, overruled on other grounds, 2003 WI 89, ¶111
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School
Issue/Holding: A guilty plea doesn’t waive a facially valid multiplicity claim. ¶13.
Waiver of Objection: Stipulation
State v. Ronald J. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, PFR filed 1/2/02
For Frank: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether defendant waived review of objection to admissibility of misconduct evidence by entering into a “Wallerman” stipulation.
Holding: A stipulation under State v. Wallerman, 203 Wis. 2d 158, 552 N.W.2d 128 (Ct. App. 1996) (an element is conceded and the other-act isn’t admitted) waives the issue of admissibility:
¶5.
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule – Issues Waived — Unauthorized Repeater Sentence
State v. Jeremy J. Hanson, 2001 WI 70, 244 Wis. 2d 405, 628 N.W.2d 759, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Hanson: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether a guilty or no contest plea waives the right to challenge the defendant’s status as an habitual traffic offender, and the right to challenge the HTO sentencing penalty as unauthorized.
Holding:
¶21. Section 973.13 requires Wisconsin courts to declare a sentence void ‘[i]n any case where the court imposes a maximum penalty in excess of that authorized by law.’
Plea Bargains — Breach: Proecdural Issues — Waiver of Objection — Renegotiated Plea
State v. David W. Oakley, 2001 WI 103, 629 N.W.2d 308, reconsideration denied, 2001 WI 123, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Oakley: Timothy T. Kay
Issue: Whether a claim of plea bargain error was waived by a subsequent renegotiation of the plea bargain and entry of no contest plea on that new agreement.
Holding:
¶23 As this court has previously stated,
Waiver of Issue: Multiplicity
State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed
For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether multiplicity claims were waived due to lack of objection until after trial. Holding: Although it isn’t necessary to raise a multiplicity challenge before trial, waiver attaches if “also omitted prior to the time the case was submitted to the jury.” ¶40.
The court’s holding seems to be informed by two notions.
Presentation & Preservation of Argument – Citing Relevant Authority
State v. Debra Noble, 2001 WI App 145, reversed, other grounds, State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64For Noble: Jeff P. Brinckman
Issue: Whether failure to cite relevant authority in support of appellate argument establishes waiver.
Holding:
¶11 … But Noble cites no authority requiring a tape recording, a transcript, or a signed statement to show the falsity of a statement.
Sentencing Review — Waiver of Objection to Reliance on Information
State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565, affirmed, other grounds, 2002 WI 34
For Samuel: Robert R. Henak
Issue: Whether the defendant waived objection to the sentencing court’s reliance on information sealed from the defendant’s inspection.
Holding:
¶42 We accept the State’s waiver argument. First, just because the trial court was in its “imposing sentence”
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Judicial Estoppel Bar to Arguing
State v. Michael Johnson, 2001 WI App 105
For Johnson: David R. Karpe
Issue: Whether defendant’s partially successful trial strategy of defending against two counts of possession of intent to deliver of claiming personal use on one count and denial of any knowledge of the substance in the second count judicially estopped him from arguing on appeal that the two counts are multiplicitous.
Holding:
¶10.