On Point: 1. Appeals

court of appeals decision

Civil Notice of Appeal and Finality of Order
All final judgments or final orders entered after September 1, 2007, must include a statement that it is a final judgment or final order for purposes of appeal, but it is not “an absolute rule” that “an appeal cannot be filed from a judgment or order that disposes of the entire matter in litigation but does not include the statement that it is final for purposes of appeal,” ¶3.

court of appeals decision; for Haywood: Robert E. Haney

Battery to Peace Officer, § 940.20(2), Elements
It is no defense to battery-to-officer that the officer refused to leave the premises when the resident withdrew consent to enter, because acting “lawfully” is not an element of the offense: “a law-enforcement officer need not be acting ‘lawfully’ for what he or she does to be done in the officer’s ‘official capacity.’

court of appeals decision; for Genevieve M.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Notice of Appeal Contents: Failure to Identify Appealable Document; Notice of Intent as Substitute 
¶2 n. 2:

The failure of the notice of appeal to correctly identify the final appealable document is not fatal to appellate jurisdiction. See Carrington v. St. Paul Fire &

court of appeals decision; for Brown: Paul Bonneson; for SPD: Colleen D. Ball, Milwaukee Appellate

No-Merit Report – Counsel Appointed by Circuit Court Rather Than SPD
Issue/Holding:

¶7        The statutes referenced in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(1)(a), relate to the appointment of counsel by the state public defender. Thus, pursuant to Rule 809.32(1)(a), an attorney appointed by the state public defender may file a no-merit report using the statutory scheme set out in Rule 809.32.

Sentence modification based on new factor; Earned Release Program and Challenge Incarceration Program

State v. Jeremy D. Schladweiler, 2008AP3119-CR, Dist II, 11/11/09

Pro se

 Issue/Holding:

¶7        Sentence modification involves a two-step process. State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989). First, a defendant must show the existence of a new factor thought to justify the motion to modify sentence.

Waiver of Escalona argument; claim of self-defense where crime includes “utter disregard of life” element

Click here for court of appeals decision, PFR filed 8/3/09

(opinion originally issued 4/23, withdrawn 5/12, reissued 5/21, withdrawn 6/12, reissued 7/2. Groundhog Day? Not quite: the withdrawn opinions found that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking a lesser included instruction to reckless injury, but the new opinion rejects that conclusion)

Pro se

Issue/Holding: State failure to argue,

Scope of review on certification; open records appeals

Click here for supreme court decision      Click here for certification

Issue/Holding:  ¶3        …  In this court’s standard order accepting the certification, we stated that “the appeal is accepted for consideration of all issues raised before the court of appeals.” See State v. Stoehr, 134 Wis. 2d 66, 70, 396 N.W.2d 177 (1986) (“When this court grants direct review upon certification,

Guilty plea waiver; detainers

Click here for court of appeals decision 

Defense counsel: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

 Issue/Holding:   

¶6        Waiver. Before addressing the merits, the State argues that Tarrant’s no contest plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, ¶54, 252 Wis. 2d 54, 643 N.W.2d 437.

 State v. Michael Scott Long, 2009 WI 36, affirming in part and reversing in part unpublished opinion
For Long: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding:

¶43 Long did not advance this statutory interpretation argument at the circuit court or at the court of appeals. Normally, under such circumstances, we would conclude that an issue neither raised nor briefed is waived. Long’s sole recourse would be to file a motion for post-conviction relief,

State v. Dione Wendell Haywood, 2009 WI App 178
For Haywood: Robert E. Haney

Issue/Holding: ¶1 n. 1:

Haywood’s notice of appeal mistakenly asserts that he also appeals “from … the postconviction motion dated December 2, 2008.”  First, Haywood’s appeal is from the circuit court’s order denying his motion, not from the motion.  Second, the circuit court’s order is dated December 1,