On Point: 1. Appeals

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State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals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.

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.