On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, reversing unpublished opinion
For Cesar G.: Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:

¶46. In contrast to the court of appeals, we view the circuit court’s statement that it was not convinced it had the statutory authority to stay the sex registration requirement as persuasive that it made its decision based on an incorrect view of the law.

WCCD v. DNR, 2004 WI 40, affirming 2003 WI App 76, 263 Wis. 2d 370, 661 N.W.2d 858

Issue/Holding:

¶5. The central issue in this case is the validity of § NR 10.01(1)(h).5 A court may declare an administrative rule invalid “if it finds that it violates constitutional provisions or exceeds the statutory authority of the agency or was promulgated without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures.”

State ex rel. Peter D. Griffin v. Smith / State ex rel. Micah E. Glenn v. Litscher, 2004 WI 36, on certification
For Griffin and Glenn: Nathaniel Cade, Jr., State Bar Pro Bono Project

Issue/Holding: A new rule of equitable tolling for untimely certiorari petitions seeking review of revocation decisions is subject to the retroactivity analysis adopted by State ex. rel.

State ex rel. Richard A. Ford v. Holm, 2004 WI App 22, PFR filed 3/1/04
For Ford: James R. Troupis, State Bar Pro Bono Project
For Amicus (SPD): Marla Stephens, Director; Patricia K. Flood, First Asst.SPD

Issue/Holding:

¶2 A person convicted in Wisconsin of committing a crime has a constitutionally guaranteed right to appeal his or her conviction to this court. WIS.

State v. Christopher Swiams, 2004 WI App 217
For Swiams: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:

¶4 The question presented by this appeal is whether persons sentenced to a bifurcated term of imprisonment whose extended supervision is revoked may seek relief under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.30 from the trial court’s reconfinement order. We hold that they may.

Review of reconfinement has been a sticking point for some time,

State v. Denis L.R., 2004 WI App 51, affirmed on other grounds, 2005 WI 110
For Denis L.R.: Richard Hahn; Dwight D. Darrow

Issue/Holding: ¶10, n. 3: Dawn originally commenced this appeal by filing a petition for leave to appeal a nonfinal order. However, we determined that the order was final because it concluded a special proceeding with respect to the confidentiality privilege held by Dawn on behalf of Kirsten.

State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Evans: Robert R. Henak
Issue/Holding:

¶30. During postconviction proceedings, a defendant must choose between being represented by the SPD, proceeding pro se, or securing private representation. State v. Redmond, 203 Wis. 2d 13, 19, 552 N.W.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1996). A defendant does not have the right to hybrid representation on appeal.

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. John S. Provo, 2004 WI App 97, PFR filed 5/7/04
For Provo: William H. Gergen
Issue/Holding:

¶19 … Further, Provo has not made the transcript of the plea hearing a part of the record. Consequently, we must assume that the transcript of that hearing supports the trial court’s finding that Provo’s plea was not coerced. See State v. McAttee,

State ex rel Kim J. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130

Issue/Holding:

 ¶12. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the only reasonable reading of Wis. Stat. § 802.06, as applied to certiorari proceedings, is that a party who has unsuccessfully moved to dismiss on other grounds may still seek dismissal grounded on claim preclusion at any time before the court has considered the merits of the petitioner’s claims.