On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Michael S., 2005 WI 82, reversing unpublished decision
For Michael S.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶6 Reviewing courts generally decline to decide moot issues but may do so under certain circumstances. [3] A court may decide a moot issue when the issue is of great public importance; occurs frequently and a definitive decision is necessary to guide the circuit courts;

State v. Eric W. Raye, 2005 WI 68, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Raye: Brian C. Hough

Issue: Whether the defendant failed to lodge contemporaneous objection (which would have waived appellate challenge) to a non-unanimous verdict revealed during jury polling when a juror indicated he did not in fact subscribe to the purported guilty verdict.

Holding:

¶29 Ultimately,

State v. Christopher Anson, 2005 WI 96, affirming, 2004 WI App 155
For Anson: Stephen J. Watson

Issue/Holding: Given a statement taken in violation of the Anson’s 6th amendment right to counsel, in which Anson admitted to facts underlying one of the charges and was prominently mentioned in the opening statements and “evidentiary phase of the trial,” and as to which he filed an unsuccessful interlocutory appeal asserting that admission of the statement would “strategically force” him to testify,

Arents v. ANR Pipeline Co., 2005 WI App 61

Issue/Holding: ¶5 n. 2:

Wisconsin Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d) and (e) (2001-02) requires the parties to provide in their briefs separate sections for their “statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review” and argument. In their appeal, the Landowners have, inappropriately, interspersed legal argument and “spin” into what should have been an objective recitation of the factual occurrences of this case.

State v. Christine M. Quackenbush /  State v. Michael D. Lee, 2005 WI App 2
For Quackenbush: Tyler J. Tripp
For Lee: Thomas F. Locante, SPD, La Crosse Trial
For Amicus: Joseph N. Ehmann, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether, in light of State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, the court of appeals retains any authority under § 809.82 to extend the time for filing a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief.

State v. Keith E. Williams, 2005 WI App 122
For Williams: Christopher William Rose

Issue/Holding: The court of appeals has authority to extend the defendant’s deadline for filing cross-appeal to State’s appeal of postconviction grant of new trial:

¶4        However, as the State points out, the jurisdiction of the circuit court was initially invoked by the motion for postconviction relief under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.30(2)(h).

State v. Bobby R. Williams, 2005 WI App 221
For Williams: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether a postconviction motion granting plea-withdrawal is final, so as to trigger the 45-day deadline in § 974.05(1)(a) for State’s appeal.
Holding:  

¶15 Wisconsin Stat. § 808.03 sets forth appeals as of right and appeals by permission. Subsection (1) explains that an order is final when it “disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more of the parties,

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. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264

Issue/Holding: ¶1 n. 4:

Lamont argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over this matter because the guardian ad litem filed the notice of appeal and the State simply joined in the appeal instead of the other way around. We reject Lamont’s contention.  WISCONSIN STAT. § 48.235(7) plainly states that the guardian ad litem “may appeal,

State v. Tommie Thames, 2005 WI App 101
Pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶12      We conclude that Thames’s arguments are procedurally barred. Thames has raised essentially the same issues he raised in his direct appeal and in his 1997 Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion. The fact that Thames’s appeal of the trial court’s order denying his 1997 § 974.06 motion was dismissed pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.83(2) (1997-98) [6] does not change the result.