On Point: 1. Appeals

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State v. Lucian Agnello, 226 Wis.2d 164, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999), reversing unpublished decision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.”

State Richard J. Kenyon, 225 Wis.2d 657, 593 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Kenyon: Rex Anderegg

Holding: Kenyon’s change in position from trial to appeal doesn’t fall within estoppel doctrine, because neither prosecution nor trial court relied on the changed position.

State v. Keith Jones, 228 Wis.2d 593, 598 N.W.2d 259 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Jones: Edward J. Hunt

Holding: In the course of making their get-away, Jones’s shoplifting codefendant allegedly threatened Shogren, a pursuing guard. Notwithstanding the codefendant’s acquittal, Jones’s conviction for armed robbery is sustained against a sufficiency of evidence challenge.

Here, there was sufficient evidence to convict Jones.  That the jury acquitted Patterson does not necessarily mean that it discounted Shogren’s testimony. 

State v. Dennis J. Kivioja, 225 Wis.2d 271, 592 N.W.2d 220 (1999), on certification
For Kivioja: Mark G. Sukowaty.

Issue/Holding: Kivioja pleaded guilty after his codefendant, Stehle, implicated him in a string of burglaries. Following his own sentencing and prior to Kivioja’s, Stehle recanted and Kivioja moved to withdraw his pleas. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing; the court of appeals certified the appeal,