On Point: 1. Appeals

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Harrison Franklin v. McCaughtry, 398 F.3d 955 (7th Cir 2005), granting habeas relief in unpublished opinion of Wis COA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

State v. Xavier J. Rockette, 2005 WI App 205
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Issue/Holding: Trial court’s error in refusing to order suppression of statement was harmless under § 971.31(10), under following circumstances:

¶27      We conclude that the result in this case would have been the same beyond a reasonable doubt even if the circuit court had granted Rockette’s suppression motion, given the overwhelming incentives Rockette had to plead rather than go to trial. 

State v. Van G. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218
For Norwood: Terry Evans Williams

Issue: Whether objection to admissibility of a defendant’s statement on the ground that it was “an offer of settlement” (which thus raised a § 904.08 bar) sufficed to raise a § 904.10 objection of an inadmissible offer to plead guilty.

Holding:

¶17      First, at the very least, trial counsel’s objection should have led the court to Wis.

State v. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71
Tillman, pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶2. The issue on the instant appeal is whether the procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo may be applied when a prior appeal was processed under the no merit procedure set forth in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo,

State v. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71
Tillman, pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶16. The no merit appeal procedure has its genesis in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and is codified in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32. … Any motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders “necessarily implicates the merits of an appeal, because the premise of the motion is that the appeal is frivolous.”

State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals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

Issue/Holding: The petition for writ of habeas corpus procedure mandated by State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 522, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992) is the exclusive mechanism for seeking reinstatement of direct appeal deadlines lost on account of ineffective assistance of counsel;

Derek J. Harder v. Carol L. Pfitzinger, 2004 WI 102

Issue/Holding:

¶15. If there are no further documents in the circuit court’s file and all substantive issues have been decided for one or more parties in an order or a judgment, there is usually less confusion about whether the time for appeal has begun to run, than when there is a subsequent court document. Our prior cases have attempted to remove confusion about when the time limits in Wis.

Village of Trempeleau v. Mike R. Mikrut, 2004 WI 79, affirming unpublished decision

Issue/Holding: (Emphasis supplied)

¶15. Mikrut did not raise his challenge to the circuit court’s competency until long after the judgment against him had been upheld on appeal. The circuit court and the court of appeals therefore held that the argument was waived. ……

¶18. Wisconsin case law is inconsistent on the question of whether a challenge to the circuit court’s competency is subject to the common-law rule of waiver.