On Point: F. Interlocutory Appeal

State v. Aaron L. Jacobs, 2022AP658-659, 2022AP661-663, 9/19/23, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The key takeaway from this soon to be published court of appeals decision may seem obvious and inarguable, but as we’ll see below, the state pursued and the circuit court blessed what would have been a massive expansion of the most commonly charged crime in the state of Wisconsin: bail jumping.

State v. Anthony James Jendusa, 2021 WI 24, affirming a court of appeals order denying interlocutory appeal; case activity (including briefs)

This litigation has been procedurally weird, as we’ve discussed before, but SCOW’s decision on the merits may turn out to be a momentous one for the future of ch. 980.

State v. Yancy Kevin Dieter, 2020 WI App 49; case activity (including briefs)

Dieter called 911 at about 6 in the morning and reported that he’d crashed his car after drinking at a bar. The crash happened about four hours before Dieter made the call; he was badly injured and the car’s other occupant was killed.

Estate of Robert C. Parker v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 2010 WI 71

The supreme court is empowered to review denial of a petition for leave to appeal non-final order by the court of appeals.

¶45 The language of our case law is strong. We have stated that “[w]here the court of appeals denies permission to appeal from an order conceded by the parties to be nonfinal,

State v. Gary J. Knapp, 2007 WI App 273
For Knapp: Cory C. Chirafisi

Issue/Holding: Dismissal of an appeal as having been directed to a non-final order doesn’t in and of itself bar the court of appeals from deciding to grant leave to appeal, ¶7 n. 2:

In its jurisdictional memoranda, the State asks us to construe its notice of appeal as a petition for leave to appeal in the event that we decline jurisdiction over the appeal. 

State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250
For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne

Issue/Holding: ¶1, n. 3:

We grant Harp’s petition because the mistrial order implicates her right against double jeopardy. “Given the serious constitutional questions raised by claims of double jeopardy, review of such orders will often be necessary to protect the accused from ‘substantial or irreparable injury,’ one of the three criteria for testing the appropriateness of review under sec.

State v. Henry W. Aufderhaar, 2004 WI App 208, PFR filed 11/16/04

For Aufderhaar: J. Paul Neumeier Jr.; Raymond E. Krek

Issue/Holding:

¶1 The major holding here is that when this court accepts an interlocutory appeal, the appellant is limited to briefing only those issues presented in the petition for leave to appeal and may not raise additional issues without the prior consent of the court.

State v. David C. Polashek, 2002 WI 74, affirming in part and reversing in part, State v. Polashek, 2001 WI App 130, 246 Wis. 2d

For Polashek: Nila Jean Robinson

Issue: Whether the state’s petition for leave to appeal a non-final order was timely, where the order was issued “nunc pro tunc” in reference to an earlier letter in which the court set forth its inclination to rule against the state.

State ex rel Thomas Hass v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2001 WI 128

Issue/Holding:

¶10. The issue presented in this case is whether this court should exercise its constitutional superintending and administrative authority to direct the court of appeals to accept all petitions for interlocutory appeal where the circuit court has denied a claim that the state court action is barred by a final federal court judgment on issue and claim preclusion grounds.

State v. Eric D. Gillespie, 2001 WI App 35, PFR filed 2/1/05
For Gillespie: John Anthony Ward

Issue: Whether, following bindover by court commissioner under § 757.69(1)(b), a defendant may obtain a “preliminary hearing de novo” (i.e., a second preliminary hearing) in circuit court under § 757.69(8).

Holding:

¶7 The State contends that WIS. STAT.