On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Miguel Angel Santana-Lopez, 2000 WI App 122, 237 Wis.2d 332, 613 N.W.2d 918
For Santana-Lopez: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: “We do not consider an argument mentioned only in a footnote to be adequately raised or preserved for appellate review,” ¶6 n.4.

Interesting that the holding itself happens to be contained in a footnote.

Juneau County DHS v. James B., 2000 WI App 86, 234 Wis. 2d 406, 610 N.W.2d 144
For Appellant; James L. Boardman; Chris R. Velnetske

Issue: Whether judicial appointment of counsel in a CHIPS case necessarily terminates after disposition, or may be continued for appeal.

Holding: Judicial appointment of counsel in a CHIPS case doesn’t automatically terminate upon disposition, the circuit court retaining authority to continue the appointment for purposes of appeal.

State v. Dennis E. Scott, 2000 WI App 51, 234 Wis. 2d 129, 608 N.W.2d 753
For Scott: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support conviction for burglary/theft.

Holding: Evidence that defendant’s fingerprint was found on the “dock station” from which a lap-top was stolen from an office that sold only to other businesses and was not open to the public; and that defendant neither had worked nor had permission to be there sufficed to support the conviction.

State v. Joel L. Ritchie, 2000 WI App 136, 237 Wis.2d 664, 614 N.W.2d 837
For Ritchie: Steven G. Bauer

Issue: What is the standard of review for an arrest warrant based on a criminal complaint?

Holding: Although review of probable cause to support a complaint is independent, review of probable cause to support an arrest warrant based on a complaint is greatly deferential (same as review of a search warrant).

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.