On Point: J. Sanctions on Appeal

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.

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,

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Inadequate Argumentation – Sanction 

Counsel’s woefully inadequate argumentation (“a single, underdeveloped legal argument” that, “(w)orse yet … was foreclosed by” prior precedent) not only dooms his client’s effort to resist deportation, notwithstanding palpable equities on her side, but has consequences for counsel himself:

… We are disturbed, however, by Baniassadi’s perfunctory performance. People in Wroblewska’s position face life-changing consequences from their immigration proceedings.

Estate of Brianna Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., 2011 WI App 101

court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); case activity

¶24 n. 7:

On page 36 of its brief responding to Excel’s main appellate brief, E&B asserts:  “[n]ot a single non-Kriefall [Pierringer] settlement agreement” is in the Record.  That is not true, as Excel’s reply brief points out.  

State v. Marilee Devries, 2011 WI App 78 (recommended for publication); for Devries: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

OWI – Repeater – Proof, Prior “Conviction”

Certified copies of proceedings in foreign jurisdictions established adequate proof of prior OWI “connvictions,” § 343.307(1)(d).

¶9        When Wisconsin’s driving laws provide for the enhancement of penalties for a current offense based on prior offenses, the State must present “‘competent proof’” of those earlier offenses.  

State v. Allen L. Resch, 2010AP2321-CR, District 2, 4/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Resch: Christopher Lee Wiesmueller, Corinne N. Wiesmueller; case activity

Reasonable suspicion supported investigatory stop for possible burglary, where vehicle was parked in private business parking lot at 2:26 a.m., with engine running and lights off.

¶13      Specifically, as the trial court indicated, the time of day is an important factor in determining whether a law enforcement officer had a reasonable suspicion. 

State v. Anthony M. Smith, 2009AP2867-CR, District 1/4, 3/3/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Smith: Rodney Cubbie, Syovata K. Edari; case activity

Trial court’s limitations on cross-examination with respect to State witness’s “prior mental condition” or use of medications (prescribed for his Bipolar Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder) upheld as proper exercise of discretion. The witness was taking his medication at the time of the alleged offense,

Shirley Anderson v. Northwood School District, 2011 WI App 31; case activity

¶7 n. 3:

Northwood cites a circuit court decision from another case as persuasive authority, correctly noting that such a citation does not violate WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3), which prohibits citing unpublished appellate cases decided before July 1, 2009.  However, Northwood then emphasizes we affirmed the circuit court, provides citation to the 2005 unpublished appellate court decision,

City of Shawano v. Darlene F. Sense, 2010AP2193-FT, District 3, 2/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity; Memo Br.; Memo Resp.; Memo Reply

¶10      As a final matter, we address certain deficiencies in Sense’s appellate brief.  First, Sense’s repeated references to “appellant” and “respondent” throughout her brief violate WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(i), which requires reference to the parties by name,

Thomas Vitrano v. Milwaukee Police Department, 2010AP1987, District 1, 1/11/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; Resp. Br.

footnote 2:

We note with some frustration that neither party included a single citation to the record in their respective briefs in violation of Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d).  Record cites are helpful to the court and are required even when the record is not voluminous.