On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Michael J. Parent, 2006 WI 132, on certification
For Parent: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison
AppellateAmicus: Meredith J. Ross & William E. Rosales

Issue/Holding:

¶30      We reject Parent’s contention that Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d) confers an unqualified right for a no-merit appellant to access personally the PSI report. …¶31      But neither are we persuaded by the State’s argument, which would place the onus on the defendant to demonstrate a “substantial need”

State v. Juan F. Milanes, 2006 WI App 259, PFR filed 12/7/06For Milanes: Joan M. Boyd

Issue/Holding:

¶21      … Further, appellate counsel cited an unpublished case in her opening brief, contrary to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(3). This does not appear to be inadvertent, since the citation ends with the parenthetical “(unpublished).” Our supreme court has reasoned that the rule against citing unpublished cases is essential to the reduction of the overwhelming number of published opinions and is a necessary adjunct to economical appellate court administration.

City of Sheboygan v. Steven Nytsch, 2006 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/11/06

For Nytsch: Chad A. Lanning

Issue/Holding: ¶18 n. 6:

…This court is not so naïve as to believe that unpublished opinions, whether one-judge opinions, per curiam opinions or authored opinions sit in a file serving as dinner for book lice. [A tiny, soft-bodied wingless psocoptera,

State ex rel. Luis Santana v. Endicott, 2006 WI App 13

Issue/Holding1: A claim that lapsed direct appeal rights should be restored on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel must be sought via habeas filed in the court of appeals, pursuant to State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992):

¶1        … Although Santana may seek habeas relief on his ineffective assistance claim,

State ex rel. Perry Van Hout v. Endicott, 2006 WI App 196, PFR filed 10/11/06
For Van Hout: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding:

¶23      Where a defendant has specifically directed counsel not to file a no-merit report after being advised of his or her options, counsel is not free to ignore the defendant’s direction. We discussed the nature of the attorney-client relationship in State v.

State ex rel. Perry Van Hout v. Endicott, 2006 WI App 196, PFR filed 10/11/06
For Van Hout: Robert R. Henak

Issue: Whether Van Hout waived his right to appellate counsel where he rejected counsel’s offer of a no-merit report and then, after having been warned of the dangers of proceeding pro se, chose neither to open an envelope containing information counsel’s motion to withdraw nor to respond to the court of appeals order granting the motion.

State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Failure to move for mistrial waived any objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument, ¶60. Nor do the comments rise to the level of plain error necessary to overcome waiver:

¶61      The State points out that, in denying Schutte’s motion for postconviction relief,

State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8
For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding: Failure to raise a Crawford objection didn’t amount to waiver: “However, Searcy could not have raised at trial a Confrontation Clause claim based on Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), because his December 2002 trial preceded the March 2004 Crawford decision by well over a year.

 State v. Juan F. Milanes, 2006 WI App 259, PFR filed 12/7/06
For Milanes: Joan M. Boyd

Issue/Holding:

¶13      A valid guilty or no contest plea waives all nonjurisdictional defenses to a conviction, including constitutional violations. See State v. Riekkoff, 112 Wis. 2d 119, 122-23, 332 N.W.2d 744 (1983). One exception to this rule is the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

Olson v. Darlington Mutual Ins., 2006 WI App 204

Issue/Holding:

¶4        … The required elements of judicial estoppel are:

            First, the later position must be clearly inconsistent with the earlier position; second, the facts at issue should be the same in both cases; and finally, the party to be estopped must have convinced the first court to adopt its position—a litigant is not forever bound to a losing argument.