On Point: 1. Appeals

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.

State v. Joseph P. DeFilippo, 2005 WI App 213
For DeFilippo: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding: To be valid, waiver of right to counsel in criminal trial proceeding must be supported by adequate record, ¶5 (citing State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 203-04, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997)). Where, as here, the record fails to make such a showing (because waiver occurred in an unrecorded conference),

State v. Mahlik D. Ellington, 2005 WI App 243
For Ellington: Andrea Taylor Cornwall

Issue/Holding: An objection on relevancy grounds does not preserve a confrontation-based argument, ¶14.

State v. Tremaine Y., 2005 WI App 56, PFR filed 3/4/05
For Tremaine: Robert W. Peterson, Samantha Jeanne Humes, SPD, Milwaukee Trial

Issue: Whether challenge to an earlier change-of-placement delinquency order, as a means of challenging the jurisdictional basis for the current ch. 980 commitment petition, comes too late to be entertained.

Holding:

¶8 The State first responds that Tremaine’s challenge to the 2001 change of placement order is too late,

State v. Somkith Neuaone, 2005 WI App 124
For Neuaone: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: Where the State admitted to breaching the plea bargain, and the defendant was explicitly offered the option of seeking plea-withdrawal but personally affirmed that he did not wish that remedy, the appellate court has “nothing to review on this issue since the trial court was never asked to make a ruling on the question,” ¶12.