On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Jerome G. Semrau, 2000 WI App 54, 233 Wis. 2d 508, 608 N.W.2d 376
For Semrau: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether (assumed) erroneous refusal to suppress evidence was harmless on appeal following guilty plea, under Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10).

Holding: Strength of admissible evidence, apart from unsuppressed evidence, placed Semrau in “significant risk of conviction,” so that there was no reasonable probability that the suppression ruling caused him to plead guilty,

(See also Appeals, Waiver; and Evidence, Objection)
State v. Charles J. Benoit, 229 Wis.2d 630, 600 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Benoit: Meredith J. Ross, LAIP.
Holding: “(A) defendant who makes a motion in limine preserves the right to appeal the issue raised by the motion without renewing the motion at trial,” but only to “the extent that the issue was raised during the motion in limine hearing.”

State ex rel. Jose DeJesus Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 225 Wis.2d 446, 593 N.W.2d 48 (1999), original action
For Fuentes: Robert T. Ruth.

The supreme court rectifies loss of the petition for review deadline caused by the court of appeal’s clerical error (failure to mail a copy of decision to appellate counsel). The remedy, which Fuentes followed, is to seek habeas relief in the supreme court. The court grants his petition,

State v. Daniel G. Scheidell, 230 Wis.2d 189, 601 N.W.2d 284 (1999), on reconsideration of State v. Scheidell, 227 Wis.2d 285, 595 N.W.2d 661 (1999).
For Scheidell: Mitchell E. Cooper, SPD, Madison

Holding: Having previously refused to entertain Scheidell’s alternative argument in support of the decision being appealed, 227 Wis. 2d at 288 n. 1, the supreme court on reconsideration, recognizes “that the appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal,

State v. Jene R. Bodoh, 226 Wis.2d 718, 595 N.W.2d 330 (1999), affirming 220 Wis.2d 102, 582 N.W.2d 440 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bodoh: Michael D. Mandelman.

Issue/Holding: Failure to raise an issue in the petition for review waives the right to argue it, though the court may nonetheless reach the merits under certain circumstances:

¶37 We decline to address this issue.

State v. Lucian Agnello, 226 Wis.2d 164, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999), reversing unpublished decision
For Agnello: Jerome F. Buting & Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue/Holding: On a motion to suppress statement, counsel’s bare relevancy objection to an inquiry into the statement’s truthfulness is held sufficient to preserve a Rogers v. Richmond/Jackson v. Denno objection. This holding is summed up by the following passages:

¶12 There is no question that Agnello’s objection was not as specific as it could have been.

State v. Tonnie D. Armstrong, 223 Wis.2d 331, 588 N.W.2d 606 (1999), reconsideration denied, 225 Wis.2d 121, 591 N.W.2d 604 (1999)
For Armstrong: Steven A. Koch and Seymour, Kremer, Nommensen, Morrissy & Koch

Issue/Holding: Armstrong pleaded guilty, with suppression issues (admissibility of oral statements) preserved as matter of law under Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10). The supreme court holds that the trial court’s refusal to order suppression was error,

State v. Clyde B. Williams, 230 Wis.2d 50, 601 N.W.2d 838 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Williams: Michael E. Nieskes

Issue: Whether papers must be filed in the county of origin after a successor judge from another county is assigned to the case

Holding: “In this appeal we conclude that when a judge from a different county is assigned to a case in response to a substitution request,

City of Sheboygan v. Laura I. Flores, 229 Wis. 2d 242, 598 N.W.2d 307 (Ct. App. 1999)

In a traffic regulation case, the docket entries – not any judgment or order – reflect the final determination and trigger the notice of appeal deadline.

Fedders v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 230 Wis.2d 577, 601 N.W.2d 861 (Ct. App. 1999)

Issue: Whether a party may cross-appeal of right any interlocutory order after leave to appeal has been granted.

Holding: “(W)e hold that once leave to appeal has been granted, any other interlocutory order is appealable only by leave of this court. We dismiss the notices of cross-appeal filed in this appeal.”