On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Lindsey A.F., 2003 WI 63, affirming 2002 WI App 223, 257 Wis. 2d 650, 653 N.W.2d 116
For Lindsey A.F.: Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶7 n. 5:

As a general rule, this court will not consider an issue which will not have any practical effect upon an existing controversy. State v. Leitner,

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue/Holding A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after the witness testified outside the jury’s presence that there were none.

State v. David C. Polashek, 2002 WI 74, affirming in part and reversing in part, State v. Polashek, 2001 WI App 130, 246 Wis. 2d

For Polashek: Nila Jean Robinson

Issue: Whether the state’s petition for leave to appeal a non-final order was timely, where the order was issued “nunc pro tunc” in reference to an earlier letter in which the court set forth its inclination to rule against the state.

State v. Joeval M. Jones, 2002 WI 53, ordering withdrawal of opinion in State v. Jones, 2002 WI App 29, 250 Wis. 2d 77, 640 N.W.2d 151
For Jones: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Under State v. Lee, 197 Wis. 2d 959, 542 N.W.2d 143 (1996), “the court of appeals may not refuse to dismiss an appeal when an appellant notifies the court of voluntary dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Wis.

Calumet County DHS v. Randall H., 2002 WI 126, on certification

Issue/Holding: Where “the procedural history” and “the underlying facts” are not in dispute, “a determination of whether the facts meet the applicable legal standard” is reviewed de novo.

State v. Edward Terrell Jennings, 2002 WI 44, on certification
For Jennings: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶3. We conclude that when confronted with a direct conflict between a decision of this court and a later decision of the United States Supreme Court on a matter of federal law, the court of appeals may, but is not required to, certify the case to us pursuant to Wis.

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: ¶8 n. 4:

The State moves to strike Williams’ appendix to his brief. It asserts that the inclusion of excerpts from the BNA Criminal Practice Guide and copies of articles pertaining to drug analysis and crime labs are outside the scope of what is permissible in an appendix.

State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App 98
For Chu: Andrew Shaw, Rex R. Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶41. In his reply brief, Chu offers no response to the State’s argument concerning information about Wales. Unrefuted arguments are deemed admitted. See Charolais Breeding Ranches v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1979). Accordingly, we reject his argument without further discussion

State v. Marvin C. Seay, State v. Christopher Tillman, 2002 WI App 37

Issue/Holding:

¶1. In these two appeals, the appellants filed unsigned notices of appeal with the clerks of the circuit courts. The issue is whether the failure to sign the notice of appeal deprives this court of appellate jurisdiction. In accord with the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Becker v. Montgomery,

State v. Paul L. Polak, 2002 WI App 120, PFR filed 5/3/02
For Polak: Philip J. Brehm
Issue/Holding:

¶15. When an adequate colloquy is not conducted, and the defendant makes a motion for a new trial or other postconviction relief from the trial court’s judgment, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the waiver of the right to counsel was knowing, intelligent and voluntary….¶16.