On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Dennis Jones, 218 Wis. 2d 599, 581 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Jones: Michael S. Holzman

Issue/Holding:

The State argues that Jones’s Batson objection, made after the jury was sworn, came too late. Jones responds that his objection was timely. We conclude that the defendant must make a Batson objection prior to the time the jury is sworn. If the objection is not made until after that time,

State v. Paul R. Benzel, 220 Wis. 2d 588, 583 N.W.2d 434 (Ct. App. 1998)
Pro se

Issue/Holding: The holding of State v. Hall, 207 Wis.2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997), that the drug tax, § 139.95, is unconstitutional applies retroactively: “failure to do so leads to the untenable result that a person stands convicted for conduct which has been held constitutionally immune from punishment. … (¶) A court cannot acquire jurisdiction to try a person for an act made criminal only by an unconstitutional law.”

Scott A. Magnuson, 220 Wis. 2d 468, 583 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Magnuson: T. Gregory Amann

Issue/Holding:

We conclude that Magnuson is judicially estopped from asserting that the two twelve-year concurrent sentences are excessive. Although Magnuson contends he did not agree to the recommended sentence, the record belies his claim. Magnuson’s probation officer set forth the recommendation in the presentence investigation report (PSI).

State v. Jason Phillips, 209 Wis.2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573 (1997), reversing State v. Phillips, 209 Wis. 2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573
For Phillips: Arthur B. Nathan

Holding: Consent to search is question of constitutional (as opposed to historical) fact, and therefore subject to independent review on appeal. Defendant consented to warrantless search of bedroom: agents went to house to investigate drug transaction;

State v. Mary Boyer, 198 Wis. 2d 837, 543 N.W. 562 (Ct. App. 1995):

In an “argument” presented in one sentence, the defendants assert, without citation to authority, that if § 161.47, STATS., does not apply to them, “there is an equal protection under the law problem that will arise.” Arguments in appellate briefs must be supported by authority, RULE 809.19(1)(e) & (3)(a), STATS., and we need not consider arguments that do not comply,