On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App, PFR filed 4/23/02
For Chu: Andrew Shaw

Issue/Holding: Evidence held sufficient, despite disagreement of experts on how fire was started; the jury was required to determine whether defendant intentionally started the fire, not specifically how it was set.

¶44      Chu may instead be arguing that the verdicts should be overturned because the State’s experts could not agree on the precise method of starting the fire,

State v. Jimmie Davison, 2002 WI App 109, overruled on other grounds, 2003 WI 89, ¶111
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: A guilty plea doesn’t waive a facially valid multiplicity claim. ¶13.

State v. Ronald J. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, PFR filed 1/2/02
For Frank: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether defendant waived review of objection to admissibility of misconduct evidence by entering into a “Wallerman” stipulation.

Holding: A stipulation under State v. Wallerman, 203 Wis. 2d 158, 552 N.W.2d 128 (Ct. App. 1996) (an element is conceded and the other-act isn’t admitted) waives the issue of admissibility:

¶5.

State v. Paul L. Polak, 2002 WI App 120, PFR filed 5/3/02
For Polak: Philip J. Brehm
Issue/Holding: A defendant need not be produced for a postconviction hearing where there are no substantial issues of fact to resolve. ¶22.

State v. Stephen T., 2002 WI App 2
For Stephen T.: Raymond M. Dall’Osto

Issue: Whether appeal of a juvenile delinquency adjudication is rendered moot by expiration of its dispositional order.

Holding: No, at least in this instance: certain facets of the order (DNA sample; sex offender registration) survive, and appellate review will therefore have a practical effect. ¶11. (The court doesn’t say whether its mootness holding is limited to offenses that incur these particular consequences.) Moreover,

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed

For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to qualify a social worker as an expert in this Ch. 980 supervised release proceeding.

Holding: Because the witness had “expertise with respect to treating sex offenders … she was qualified to give her opinion on the ultimate issue.” ¶29.

State ex rel Thomas Hass v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2001 WI 128

Issue/Holding:

¶10. The issue presented in this case is whether this court should exercise its constitutional superintending and administrative authority to direct the court of appeals to accept all petitions for interlocutory appeal where the circuit court has denied a claim that the state court action is barred by a final federal court judgment on issue and claim preclusion grounds.

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Eugene Nichols v. Litscher, 2001 WI 119
For Nichols: Jeffrey O. Davis, Daniel J. LaFave

Issue: Whether a pro se prisoner’s petition for review may be accepted for filing in the supreme court, even though received after the filing deadline, where it was delivered to prison authorities for mailing before the deadline.

Holding:

¶11 We decline to interpret the term ‘file’

State v. Anou Lo, 2003 WI 107, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Lo: Robert R. Henak
Amicus Briefs: Joseph N. Ehmann, Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD; Meredith J. Ross, Walter J. Dickey, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Retroactivity on collateral attack of a  “new” rule– one imposing a new obligation on the state and not dictated by prior precedent – must satisfy the test of Teague v.

State v. Colleen E. Hansen, 2001 WI 53, 243 Wis. 2d 328, 627 N.W.2d 195, on certification
For Hansen: Pamela Pepper

Issue: Whether a prior decisional pronouncement should be treated as precedential when it is contradicted elsewhere in the decision.

Holding: “Because of the internal inconsistency [in the prior decision], no judicial precedent was established in the first place,” ¶33.