On Point: 1. Appeals

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.

State v. Rex E. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20, PFR filed 1/8/04
For Wollenberg: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶12. Second, assuming this was a DPA, Wollenberg claims the judgment is void because the agreement was never in writing. Wollenberg, however, invited the error he alleges, and we normally will not review invited error. See Atkinson v. Mentzel,

State v. Gregg A. Pfaff, 2004 WI App 31
For Pfaff: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: Failure to request order barring on prosecutor’s conferring with particular witness during break in testimony waived right to challenge such consultation, notwithstanding similar order with respect to different witness, and general sequestration order. ¶¶38-41.

State v. Thomas H. Bush (II), 2004 WI App 193, reversed in part, 2005 WI 103
For Bush: Robert G. LeBell

Issue: Whether Bush, on appeal from denial of petition for release from SVP commitment, § 980.09(2), is procedurally barred from challenging the constitutionality of his underlying commitment because he could have raised such challenge in a prior appeal.

Holding:

¶13.

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

Issue/Holding:

 ¶7. Generally, on an appeal of the circuit court’s order granting or denying relief in a certiorari action, we review the underlying decision of the administrative agency, not that of the circuit court. See State ex rel. Sprewell v. McCaughtry, 226 Wis. 2d 389, 393, 595 N.W.2d 39 (Ct.

State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Swenson, 2004 WI App 224, PFR filed 11/24/04
For Myers: Christopher T. Sundberg; Bruce D. Huibregtse

Issue/Holding:

¶6. A motion to quash a writ of certiorari is akin to a motion to dismiss. Fee v. Board of Review, 2003 WI App 17, ¶7, 259 Wis. 2d 868, 657 N.W.2d 112. Both a motion to quash and a motion to dismiss test the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint.

State ex rel. Raymond Booker v. Schwarz, 2004 WI App 50
For Booker: John Pray, Legal Assistance Program, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶10 We review the decision of the agency, not that of the circuit court. State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz, 211 Wis. 2d 710, 717, 566 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1997), aff’d, 219 Wis.

State v. Walter Leutenegger, 2004 WI App 127
For Leutenegger: Bill Ginsberg

Issue/Holding: “[The court of appeals is] bound by the most recent pronouncements of the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” ¶5, quoting Jones v. Dane County, 195 Wis. 2d 892, 918 n.8, 537 N.W.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1995). And, ¶10, utilizing same quote: “Therefore, we applyRichter because it is the most recent supreme court decision on the topic.”

But it’s not quite that simple.