On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Jeremy J. Hanson, 2001 WI 70, 244 Wis. 2d 405, 628 N.W.2d 759, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals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.’

State v. David W. Oakley, 2001 WI 103, 629 N.W.2d 308, reconsideration denied, 2001 WI 123, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals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,

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Issue: Whether an unpublished decision may be cited for its “persuasive” value.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We acknowledge that the cited order from the Seventh Circuit is an ‘unpublished opinion.’ However, the Seventh Circuit’s rule only prohibits citation of an ‘unpublished opinion’ as precedent in any federal court in that circuit. 7th Cir.

State v. Eric D. Gillespie, 2001 WI App 35, PFR filed 2/1/05
For Gillespie: John Anthony Ward

Issue: Whether, following bindover by court commissioner under § 757.69(1)(b), a defendant may obtain a “preliminary hearing de novo” (i.e., a second preliminary hearing) in circuit court under § 757.69(8).

Holding:

¶7 The State contends that WIS. STAT.

State v. Cherise A. Raflick, 2001 WI 129
For Raflik: Michael J. Fitzgerald, Dean A. Strang

Issue/Holding:

¶1. This case requires us to decide whether suppression is the proper remedy when a telephonic application for a search warrant is not recorded in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 968.12(3)(d)1, and when the factual basis for the warrant is reconstructed in an ex parte hearing after the warrant has been executed.

State v. John Casteel, 2001 WI App 188, PFR filed

Issue: Whether the appeal is sufficiently frivolous to warrant sanctions.

Holding:

¶19. On five previous occasions, Casteel’s appeals have been dismissed based on Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4) and Escalona-Naranjo. This case is dismissed on the same basis. Because we conclude that Casteel knows or should know that this, his eighth postconviction order appeal, is without any reasonable basis in law or equity and is not supported by a good faith argument for an extension,

State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed
For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether multiplicity claims were waived due to lack of objection until after trial. Holding: Although it isn’t necessary to raise a multiplicity challenge before trial, waiver attaches if “also omitted prior to the time the case was submitted to the jury.” ¶40.

The court’s holding seems to be informed by two notions.

State v. Debra Noble, 2001 WI App 145, reversed, other grounds, State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64For Noble: Jeff P. Brinckman

Issue: Whether failure to cite relevant authority in support of appellate argument establishes waiver.

Holding:

¶11 … But Noble cites no authority requiring a tape recording, a transcript, or a signed statement to show the falsity of a statement.

State v. William Nielsen, 2001 WI App 192, PFR filed
For Nielsen: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding:

¶20. Our review of a claimed discovery violation under Wis. Stat. § 971.23 is subject to a harmless error analysis. See State v. Koopmans, 202 Wis. 2d 385, 396, 550 N.W.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1996). The test of harmless error is whether the appellate court in its independent determination can conclude there is sufficient evidence,

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565, affirmed, other grounds, 2002 WI 34
For Samuel: Robert R. Henak

Issue: Whether the defendant waived objection to the sentencing court’s reliance on information sealed from the defendant’s inspection.

Holding:

¶42 We accept the State’s waiver argument. First, just because the trial court was in its “imposing sentence”