On Point: D. Waiver of issues/arguments

State v. Alfredo Ramirez, 2001 WI App 158, PFR filed 7/11/01
For Ramirez: Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski

Issue: Whether Ramirez’s guilty plea waived an ex post facto challenge to the charged offense.

Holding: ¶4 n. 4:

We could invoke the guilty plea/waiver rule against Ramirez since he pled guilty to the charge after the trial court rejected his constitutional challenge. See State v.

State v. James G. Langenbach, 2001 WI App 222
For Langenbach: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the state may call a defendant to testify, as an adverse witness, at Phase II of an NGI trial, following Phase I guilty plea.

Holding: A guilty plea doesn’t necessarily result in loss of fifth amendment rights: The privilege continues at least until sentencing, ¶9; moreover, the privilege continues during the direct appeal,

State v. John D. Williams, 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164, affirmed without discussing this issue, 2002 WI 1
For Williams: John A. Pray

Issue: Whether the defendant properly preserved objection to a prosecutorial breach of plea bargain.

Holding: ¶13:

(T)he trial court recognized it as an objection and initially agreed with Williams’s attorney. The objection was sufficient.

State v. Dale H. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, 236 Wis. 2d 537, 613 N.W.2d 606, reversing State v. Davidson, 222 Wis. 2d 233, 589 N.W.2d 038
For Davidson: Jerome F. Buting & Pamela Moorshead

Issue: Whether objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument was waived by failing to move for mistrial.
Holding: Although Davidson objected to the closing argument, his failure to also move for mistrial waived the objection.

State v. Dennis E. Scott, 2000 WI App 51, 234 Wis. 2d 129, 608 N.W.2d 753
For Scott: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether right to review of a motion to dismiss at the close of the state’s case waived by failing to object to the trial court’s delay in ruling until after the defense presents its case.

Holding: Although “the better practice is for trial courts to decide the motion at the close of the State’s case,”

(See also Appeals, Waiver; and Evidence, Objection)
State v. Charles J. Benoit, 229 Wis.2d 630, 600 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Benoit: Meredith J. Ross, LAIP.
Holding: “(A) defendant who makes a motion in limine preserves the right to appeal the issue raised by the motion without renewing the motion at trial,” but only to “the extent that the issue was raised during the motion in limine hearing.”

State v. Lucian Agnello, 226 Wis.2d 164, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999), reversing unpublished decision
For Agnello: Jerome F. Buting & Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue/Holding: On a motion to suppress statement, counsel’s bare relevancy objection to an inquiry into the statement’s truthfulness is held sufficient to preserve a Rogers v. Richmond/Jackson v. Denno objection. This holding is summed up by the following passages:

¶12 There is no question that Agnello’s objection was not as specific as it could have been.

State Richard J. Kenyon, 225 Wis.2d 657, 593 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Kenyon: Rex Anderegg

Holding: Kenyon’s change in position from trial to appeal doesn’t fall within estoppel doctrine, because neither prosecution nor trial court relied on the changed position.

State v. Chad D. Schroeder, 224 Wis.2d 706, 593 N.W.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Schroeder: Patrick C. Brennan.

Issue/Holding: A guilty plea waives any right to a hearing under State v. Becker, 74 Wis. 2d 675, 247 N.W.2d 495 (1976) (whether state manipulated adult court in not commencing case I juvenile court). A Becker issue, in other words, is one of potential constitutional,

State v. Darcy N.K., 218 Wis. 2d 640, 581 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Darcy K.: Kenneth L. Lund, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: A party who prevailed at the trial level is judicially estopped, on appeal, from challenging the trial court’s favorable action taken at his or her own request.