On Point: 1. Appeals

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.

State v. William E. Draughon III, 2005 WI App 162, (AG’s) PFR filed
For Draughton: Stephen L. Miller

Issue/Holding: ¶8 n. 2:

We observe that Draughon did not object to the jury instruction when provided the opportunity by the circuit court. Draughon nonetheless raises his objection here under color of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim as well as his claim that the real controversy was not fully tried.

State v. Richard A. Brown, 2005 WI 29, reversing 2004 WI App 33, 269 Wis. 2d 750, 767 N.W.2d 555
For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶7. … The three standards of appellate review of circuit court decisions have been stated numerous times, although case law has articulated sub-principles and different ways of stating the standards of review: (1) A reviewing court will not overturn findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.

State v. Kenneth V. Harden, 2005 WI App 252
For Harden: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: Holding of Wisconsin supreme court binds the court of appeals, such that dicta in decision of latter court in conflict with supreme court holding must be withdrawn, ¶5 citing, Nommensen v. American Continental Ins. Co., 2000 WI App 230, ¶16, 239 Wis. 2d 129, 619 N.W.2d 137.

Just to be perfectly clear: the court of appeals does not have authority to overrule its ownprecedent, 

State v. Harry L. Seymer, 2005 WI App 93
For Seymer: Andrea T. Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Improper termination of defendant’s cross-examination of the sexual assault complainant was not harmless error, where abbreviated though it was, cross had already “raise(d) serious questions concerning A.S.’s credibility and the veracity of her account …. Thus, it is within the realm of reasonable possibility that the completed cross-examination would have produced evidence that seriously undermined the credibility and recollections of the victim,

State ex rel. Individual v. Davis, 2005 WI 70, on certification
Subpoenaed Individual: Stephen P. Hurley, Marcus J. Berghahn, Hal Harlowe

Issue/Holding:

¶15      A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that normally will not issue except in the absence of other adequate remedies. [6] As a remedy, writs of prohibition are often used in connection with John Doe proceedings.

Harrison Franklin v. McCaughtry, 398 F.3d 955 (7th Cir 2005), granting habeas relief in unpublished opinion of Wis COA

Issue/Holding: The tripartite test for judicial bias (subjective inquiry answered by trial judge’s determination of own impartiality; objective examination as to whether reasonable person could question judge’s impartiality; and if partiality is established, whether it was harmless, see State v. Rochelt, 165 Wis.