On Point: 4. Waiver of issues

Maya Elaine Smith v. Jeff Anderson, 2017 WI 43, dismissing a petition for review of 366 Wis. 2d 808, 874 N.W.2d 347 (Ct. App. 2016)(unpublished); case activity (including briefs)

Recently, SCOW has marched ahead and decided issues that the parties did not properly preserve or brief–to the detriment of indigent defendants.  Recall what happened a few weeks ago in State v. Denny and earlier in State v. Sulla and State v. Smith. But in this case, after briefing and argument by the parties and an amicus curiae, a 3-justice majority (Ziegler and RG Bradley didn’t participate) showed remarkable restraint. It issued a per curiam opinion dismissing a petition for review as improvidently granted because nobody preserved an issue the court of appeals declined to decide. The upshot? It appears that SCOW has rescued West Bend Mutual Insurance Company from an appellate blunder and possible defeat. The blunder presents a teachable moment for appellate lawyers trying to preserve issues for supreme court review.

State v. Jeffrey C. Denny, 2017 WI 17, reversing a published court of appeals decision; 2015AP202-CR, 2/28/2017; case activity (including briefs)

In State v. Moran, 2005 WI 115, 284 Wis. 2d 24, 700 N.W.2d 884, the supreme court unanimously held that Wis. Stat. § 974.07, the postconviction DNA testing statute, provides two routes for a convicted defendant seeking exoneration: a defendant satisfying certain basic criteria may pay for his own testing of physical evidence; one making a stronger showing of potential significance may secure such testing at public expense. The court now closes off the first, self-paid route.

State v. Richard J. Sulla, 2016 WI 46, 6/14/16, reversing an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Sulla entered a plea agreement requiring him to plead “no contest” to two counts and the State to dismiss and “read in” two other counts for purposes of sentencing and restitution. But after he was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment, Sulla moved for plea withdrawal arguing that he was misinformed of, and did not understand, the effect that a read-in charge could have at sentencing. The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing. Don’t be fooled. SCOW’s decision here affects more than plea withdrawal. It changes appellate procedure.

State v. Jene R. Bodoh, 226 Wis.2d 718, 595 N.W.2d 330 (1999), affirming 220 Wis.2d 102, 582 N.W.2d 440 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bodoh: Michael D. Mandelman.

Issue/Holding: Failure to raise an issue in the petition for review waives the right to argue it, though the court may nonetheless reach the merits under certain circumstances:

¶37 We decline to address this issue.