On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. John Norman, 2003 WI 72, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Norman: Angela Kachelski

Issue/Holding: Norman’s failure on appeal to develop an argument analytically necessary to the issue he raises waives his right to have that issue reviewed. ¶64.

State v. Phonesavanh Vanmanivong, 2003 WI 41, reversing, 2001 WI App 299
For Vanmanivong: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding: Trial court failure to order disclosure of an informant is subject to harmless error analysis. The state, as beneficiary of the error, bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the error didn’t contribute to the verdict. Here, the error was harmless: the error in the trial court’s finding that disclosure was unnecessary was procedural in nature (because it was based on unsworn rather than sworn in camera assertions and because it was procured by the judge rather than the litigants);

State v. John S. Cooper, 2003 WI App 227, PFR filed 11/14/03
For Cooper: John A. Birdsall
Issue/Holding:

¶23. As a final matter, this court notes with dismay the multiple citations to unpublished opinions contained in Cooper’s appellate brief. The Rules of Appellate Procedure proscribe as follows:

Unpublished opinions not cited. An unpublished opinion is of no precedential value and for this reason may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority,

U.S. Bank National v. City of Milwaukee, 2003 WI App 220

Issue/Holding: fn. 4:

The brief submitted to us by the City of Milwaukee is overly tendentious and lacks the civility that lawyers owe to both their adversaries and to the courts. The following has no place in a brief before any court in this state: accusing an opposing party of seeking “political anarchy” … of “creating a `sideshow,’”

State ex rel. Dillard Earl Kelley, 2003 WI App 81

Issue/Holding: The prison mailbox rule of State ex rel. Nichols v. Litscher, 2001 WI 119 (petition for review filed after nominal deadline timely nonetheless if submitted before deadline to prison authorities for mailing by pro se prisoner) extended here to notice of appeal to dismissal of habeas corpus challenging custody; and, rule’s requirement that document be properly addressed satisfied if addressed to branch clerk of Milwaukee court:

¶11.

State ex rel Unnamed Persons v. State, 2003 WI 30
For Unnamed Persons: Franklyn M. Gimbel, et al.
Issue/Holding:

¶48. On balance, we conclude that Wisconsin Constitution, Article VII, Section 5(3), read together with the language in Wis. Stat. § 808.03(2) and in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.51(1) including “other person or body,” is sufficiently broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding.

Raz v. Brown, 2003 WI 29
Issue/Holding: Because it is no different in effect from dismissal with prejudice, summary reversal is a “drastic sanction” triggering the test under State v. Smythe, 225 Wis. 2d 456, 592 N.W.2d 628 (1999) and § 809.83(2), and may not be imposed “without finding egregious conduct, bad faith, or a litigant’s abandonment of the appeal.” ¶¶3,

 State v. Rick L. Edwards, 2003 WI App 221, PFR filed 10/24/03
For Edwards: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:

¶8. As a threshold matter, we reject Edwards’ challenge to the trial court’s order staying Edwards’ conditional jail time because the order was issued ex parte and without notice. We hold that Edwards failed to raise this issue with sufficient prominence before the trial court.

State v. Shon D. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, PFR filed 2/3/03
For Brown: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Where defendant was charged with theft and operating without consent relating to property and a vehicle that he had permission to take but failed to deliver to the agreed out-of-state destination, his proffer that he drove to a truck stop where he abandoned the vehicle was insufficient to preserve the issue of whether the trial erred in excluding his testimony due to failure to comply with notice of alibi requirement,

State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed, 2004 WI 33
For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding:

¶11. As Gary correctly notes, however, we are not bound by the Ohler decision because the Supreme Court’s holding did not rest on an interpretation of U.S. Constitutional or other “federal law” that we must apply in this case.