On Point: C. Briefs/Appendices

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court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Zurkowski: Michael J. Fairchild; BiC; Resp.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,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Oetzman: Kirk B. Obear; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – U-Turn

¶8     As such, three rules of the road come into play.Under Wis. Stat. § 346.34(1), no person may turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway as required in Wis.

S.C. Johnson v. Milton E. Morris, 2010 WI App 6, PFR filed 12/30/09

Issue/Holding: ¶5 n. 1:

Justice Robert Hansen once wrote the now familiar phrase that “[a]n appellate court is not a performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played on an appeal.” State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc., 81 Wis. 2d 555,

court of appeals decision

Inadequate Appendix to Appellate Brief
¶5 n. 1:

 We note that neither Russell’s nor Buske’s appellate counsel properly cite to the record. Record cites are often missing. An appellate court is improperly burdened where briefs fail to consistently and accurately cite to the record. Meyer v. Fronimades, 2 Wis. 2d 89, 93-94, 86 N.W.2d 25 (1957). Even more troubling is that both appellate counsel failed to include in the appendix all “the findings or opinion[s] of the circuit court … including oral or written rulings or decisions showing the circuit court’s reasoning regarding those issues,” as required by Wis.

 State v. Michael Scott Long, 2009 WI 36, affirming in part and reversing in part unpublished opinion
For Long: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding:

¶43 Long did not advance this statutory interpretation argument at the circuit court or at the court of appeals. Normally, under such circumstances, we would conclude that an issue neither raised nor briefed is waived. Long’s sole recourse would be to file a motion for post-conviction relief,

 State v. Michael Lee Washington, 2009 WI App 148
For Washington: Christopher Lee Wiesmueller

Issue/Holding: ¶1 n. 1:

The State asserts that Washington is precluded from making this argument on appeal because he did not object when the prosecutor made his recommendation before the circuit court. Generally, the failure to object is a “dispositive infirmity.” State v. Grindemann,

State v. James D. Lammers, 2009 WI App 136, PFR filed 9/16/09For Lammers: Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding:

¶12      “Plain error” means a clear or obvious error, one that likely deprived the defendant of a basic constitutional right. State v. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, ¶25, 250 Wis. 2d 95, 640 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App. 2001). Wisconsin Stat. § 901.03(4) recognizes the plain error doctrine,

State v. James D. Miller, 2009 WI App 111, PFR filed 8/3/09
Pro se

Issue/Holding: State failure to argue, in the trial court, that Miller’s 974.06 motion was barred under Escalona-Naranjo waived the argument on appeal:

¶25   We conclude that application of the waiver rule is appropriate here, and therefore decline to address the State’s Escalona argument. Waiver is a rule of judicial administration,

State v. Christopher F. Becker, 2009 WI App 59, PFR filed 5/8/09
For Becker: Jeremy C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: By failing to object, defendant waived right to challenge judicial response to deliberating jury’s question, notwithstanding conceded unanimity problems in the response:

¶15   Nevertheless, we must agree with the State and hold that Becker waived his argument that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in answering the jury’s question in the manner it did.

State v. Dhosi J. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, affirming 2007 WI App 268
For Ndina: Richard L. Kaiser

Issue/Holding: (Generally:)

¶29      Although cases sometimes use the words “forfeiture” and “waiver” interchangeably, the two words embody very different legal concepts. “Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.”