On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Ellen T. Straehler, 2008 WI App 14
For Straehler: Daniel P. Fay
Issue/Holding: ¶2 n. 4:

We appreciate the attorney general’s thorough recitation of the facts and draw freely from it. Both the district attorney and the attorney general submitted response briefs and we refer to their position collectively as the State’s. Straehler’s recitation of facts is incomplete, lacks citation to the record and cites to documents outside of the record.

Bettendorf v. St. Croix County, 2008 WI App 97

Issue/Holding: An appellate “brief contain(ing) a collection of attacks against [opposing counsel] that are nothing more than unfounded, mean-spirited slurs” subjects its author to ethical sanction:

¶17      “A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials.” (Emphasis added.) Preamble, SCR ch. 20 (2005-06).

State v. Todd E. Peterson, 2008 WI App 140
For Peterson: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: A defendant has a 6th amendment-based right to retained postconviction counsel of choice:

¶9        The State correctly counters that Miller and Gonzalez-Lopez involved the right to counsel of choice at trial. Here, Peterson was postconviction, at a Machner proceeding. …¶10      Martinez and Tamalini provide no guidance on the question presented.

State ex rel. Jarrad T. Panama v. Hepp, 2008 WI App 146
For Panama: Philip J. Brehm

Issue/Holding: Panama’s collateral attack on a sentence previously affirmed by no-merit appeal may be canalized into a “Knight” habeas petition, at least where the challenge is based on a potential defect apparent in the record.

The court continues to dredge up the terrain between direct appeal and collateral attack: Knight falls on one side,

State v. Elizabeth A. White, 2008 WI App 96
For White: T Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding:

¶8        To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a party must either present newly discovered evidence or establish a manifest error of law or fact. Koepsell’s Olde Popcorn Wagons, Inc. v. Koepsell’s Festival Popcorn Wagons, Ltd., 2004 WI App 129, ¶44, 275 Wis. 2d 397,

State v. Audrey A. Edmunds , 2008 WI App 33; prior history: State v. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999), habeas relief denied, Edmunds v. Deppisch, 313 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2002)
For Edmunds: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Presentation of expert testimony to establish, under a theory of newly discovered evidence,

State v. Kevin M. Champlain, 2008 WI App 5, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/4/08
For Champlain: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶15      The State first argues that Champlain has waived the armband issue. The State contends that Champlain cannot not be heard to complain about the jury seeing the armband device when he himself declined Strand’s offer of a long-sleeved shirt before he was brought into the courtroom for his trial.

State v. Charles W. Mark, 2008 WI App 44; on appeal following remand in State v. Mark, 2006 WI 78, 292 Wis. 2d 1, 718 N.W.2d 90
For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶57      In summary, while the termination from the community treatment program and the rule violation were presented as conduct that, along with the hotel incident,

State v. Ronell E. Harris, 2008 WI 15, affirming unpublished decision
For Harris: Ralph J. Sczygelskis

Issue/Holding: Various discovery and evidentiary violations amounted to harmless error, whether taken singly (¶¶41-59, ¶87-90) or cumulatively (¶¶109-113).Harmless error discussions are largely fact-specific, and this case is no exception. But it is noteworthy for its recognition that the “court has formulated the test for harmless or prejudicial error in a variety of way,” ¶42.

State v. Kevin M. Champlain, 2008 WI App 5, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/4/08
For Champlain: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶37      Owner nonconsent, like other elements of criminal offenses, may be proved by circumstantial evidence. See Bohachef v. State, 50 Wis.  2d 694, 700-01, 185 N.W.2d 339 (1971). The test on review is whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,