On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Important appellate practice reminder: Rule governing references to victims in briefs takes effect July 1, 2015
Attention appellate practitioners: We are pleased to present this guest post by Andrea Cornwall, Regional Attorney Manager if the SPD’s Milwaukee Appellate Office, about the imminent change in the rules governing references to victims in appellate brief.
Exasperated, District 3 penalizes all parties to appeal
Loren H. Laufman v. North Central Power Co., Inc., 2012AP2116, District 3 (per curiam; not eligible for publication or citation).
Normally, On Point would not trouble its readers with a per curiam decision involving insurance coverage issues. This one, however, penalizes parties for violations of Wisconsin’s Rules of Appellate Procedure, so appellate lawyers of all stripes should pay attention. Skipping over the substantive insurance issues,
State v. Gregory K. Nielsen, 2010AP387-CR, Sanction Order
Nielsen sanction after show cause (summary order, not citable), on remand from State v. Nielsen, 2011 WI 94
Sanction for Incomplete Brief Appendix
The appellant’s brief argued that the circuit court failed to fulfill the mandate articulated in State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, to explain the rationale for the particular sentence imposed.
Monetary Sanction, Appendix- Content Certification Rule
In the Matter of Sanctions in: State v. Gregory K. Nielsen, 2011 WI 94, remanding sanctions order; for State Public Defender: Joseph N. Ehmann; case activity; subsequent history: sanction re-imposed on remand
Monetary sanction summarily ordered by court of appeals against appellate counsel for allegedly violating appendix-content rule reversed, with following “suggestion” for procedure to be followed in such situations:
¶5 Considering the interests of the court of appeals,
Appellate Procedure – Sanctions and Inadequate Argumentation
State v. Michael E. Ballenger, 2010AP664-CR, District 3, 11/16/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ballenger: Ryan D. Lister; Ballenger BiC; State’s Resp.
Appellate Procedure – Sanction
Ballenger’s brief’s appendix does not include any portion of the suppression motion hearing transcript—neither deputy Campbell’s testimony nor the court’s factual findings or reasoning for denying the motion. Yet, as required by rule,
State v. Chad W. Voeller, No. 2009AP001596-CR, District II, 7/28/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Voeller: Steven G. Richards; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Counsel – Sanction – Appendix
Contrary to the State’s certification, the appendix does not include the trial court’s findings or opinion. The transcript of the oral findings and opinion should have been included in the appendix.
1st-Degree Intentional Homicide – Sufficient Evidence, Intent; Sanction – Appendix
State v. Patrick M. Zurkowski, No. 2009AP929-CR, District III, 6/22/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Zurkowski: Michael J. Fairchild; BiC; Resp.
1st-Degree Intentional Homicide – Sufficient Evidence, Intent
¶13 That Zurkowski killed June through a combination of repeated blows and cutting her tongue with a ceramic object he crammed in her mouth, rather than by killing her via a single fatal wound,
Briefs – Appendix: Importance of, and Sanction for Falsely Certifying Compliance
State v. Philip R. Bons, 2007 WI App 124, PFR filed 4/24/07
Issue/Holding:
¶23 Applying the plain language of the rule, Gorokhovsky’s certification of compliance is false. His appendix contains only a copy of the judgment of conviction, the notice of motion and motion to suppress, and the notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief. How these documents in any way inform this court about the trial court’s determinations “essential to an understanding of the issues raised,” we do not know.