On Point blog, page 112 of 118
Defendant’s Presence at Postconviction Hearing
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.
Mootness — Delinquency — Expired Dispositional Order
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,
Expert — Qualifications
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.
Interlocutory Appeal – Issue / Claim Preclusion
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.
Petition for Review Deadline — Pro Se Prisoner “Mailbox Rule”
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’
Binding Authority — Retroactivity Analysis
State v. Anou Lo, 2003 WI 107, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals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.
Binding Authority: Precedential Impact of Contradictory Pronouncements in Appellate Decision
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.
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule – Issues Waived — Unauthorized Repeater Sentence
State v. Jeremy J. Hanson, 2001 WI 70, 244 Wis. 2d 405, 628 N.W.2d 759, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Hanson: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether a guilty or no contest plea waives the right to challenge the defendant’s status as an habitual traffic offender, and the right to challenge the HTO sentencing penalty as unauthorized.
Holding:
¶21. Section 973.13 requires Wisconsin courts to declare a sentence void ‘[i]n any case where the court imposes a maximum penalty in excess of that authorized by law.’
Plea Bargains — Breach: Proecdural Issues — Waiver of Objection — Renegotiated Plea
State v. David W. Oakley, 2001 WI 103, 629 N.W.2d 308, reconsideration denied, 2001 WI 123, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Oakley: Timothy T. Kay
Issue: Whether a claim of plea bargain error was waived by a subsequent renegotiation of the plea bargain and entry of no contest plea on that new agreement.
Holding:
¶23 As this court has previously stated,
Briefs – Citing Unpublished Opinion
State ex rel. Michael J. Gendrich v. Litscher, 2001 WI App 163
Issue: Whether an unpublished decision may be cited for its “persuasive” value.
Holding: ¶7 n. 6:
We acknowledge that the cited order from the Seventh Circuit is an ‘unpublished opinion.’ However, the Seventh Circuit’s rule only prohibits citation of an ‘unpublished opinion’ as precedent in any federal court in that circuit. 7th Cir.