On Point: C. Briefs/Appendices

State v. Darren A. Kliss, 2007 WI App 13
For Kliss: Michael C. Witt
Issue/Holding: ¶6 n. 4:

We observe that Kliss, in his appellate brief, is inconsistent in his use of pinpoint citations for the case law he invokes to support his legal contentions. Wisconsin Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(e) requires the appellant to support its contentions with citations conforming to the Uniform System of Citation and Supreme Court Rule 80.02.

State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶14      … The State concedes before this court, as it did in the court of appeals, that Johnson did not freely consent to the search of his vehicle. [4] …

 [4]  The dissent faults the State for making this concession.

Dane Co. DHS v. Dyanne M., 2007 WI App 129, PFR filed 4/23
For Dyanne M.: Phillip J. Brehm

Issue/Holding: Reply brief failure to address argument raised in response brief may be deemed conceded for purposes of appeal, ¶23 n. 7, citing Hoffman v. Economy Preferred Ins. Co., 2000 WI App 22, ¶9, 232 Wis. 2d 53,

State v. Dawn R. Dartez, 2007 WI App 126, PFR filed 4/23
For Dartez: Bill Ginsberg
Issue/Holding: Failure of a response brief to dispute a proposition in appellant’s brief may be taken as implicit concession of the proposition, ¶6 n. 3.

State v. Thomas C. Burton, 2007 WI App 237
For Burton: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding:

¶11   As to the lack of contemporaneous objection, we note that Burton argued strenuously before Warmington testified that his proposed testimony would be irrelevant and prejudicial, and asked that he be subjected to a voir dire outside the jury’s presence. The circuit court denied Burton the requested voir dire [1] and further ruled that Warmington could offer testimony going to the truthfulness of the witnesses and to Burton’s intent.

State v. Heather A. Markwardt, 2007 WI App 242, PFR filed 11/29/07
For Markwardt: Richard Hahn

Issue/Holding:

¶13  … The State’s citation for the first time on appeal to Davis and Ross is not a new argument but citation to additional authority. Citation to additional authority and legal analysis on appeal does not constitute “new argument” or advancement of a new theory on appeal.

State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed
For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr.

Issue/Holding: ¶44, n. 14:

The State also argues that Cockrell waived his right to object on this ground because he did not move for a mistrial. We agree with Cockrell that the case the State relies on for this argument, State v.

State v. Frederick W. Rushing, 2007 WI App 227, PFR filed 10/25/07
For Rushing: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: The State’s silent acquiescence to judicial action (sua sponte withdrawal of a guilty plea) didn’t work judicial estoppel bar to mounting subsequent challenge to that ruling, ¶14.

 State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding:

¶6       Thexton next claims that the circuit court erred in considering the PSI from his prior conviction. On realizing that the PSI in this case had been prepared with extensive reference to the PSI from Thexton’s prior conviction, Thexton’s attorney objected to the circuit court that he could not adequately respond to it because he did not have access to the prior PSI.

State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2007 WI App 252, PFR filed 11/1/07; on remand from supreme court, and affirming, 2006 WI App 163
For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶12      Generally, we do not apply waiver against a respondent who is seeking to uphold a trial court ruling. See State v. Holt,