On Point blog, page 97 of 118
Binding Authority — Published Wisconsin Court of Appeals Opinion – Review by Supreme Court
State v. Owen Budd, 2007 WI App 245
For Budd: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Review of a published court of appeals’ decision by the supreme court leaves intact any portion of the opinion not reversed, ¶13 n. 4, citing State v. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, ¶40.
Jones itself holds:
We agree with the State that this exact claim has already been rejected in State v.
Binding Authority – Dicta, Generally
State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2007 WI App 174, affirmed, 2008 WI 85
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶26 The State argues that our supreme court’s decision in Hughes validates the officers’ hot pursuit entry in this case. In Hughes, the court held that the crime of possession of marijuana was serious enough to justify the warrantless entry of an apartment under the exigent circumstance of preventing the destruction of evidence.
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error Review – Conclusive Presumption
State v. Sherry L. Schultz, 2007 WI App 257; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89, affirmed, 2005 WI 31
For Schultz: Stephen L. Morgan, Jennifer M. Krueger
Issue/Holding: Instructional error due to mandatory conclusive presumption wasn’t harmless:
¶28 As we have explained, the trial error consisted of an instruction that the jury must accept as true the elemental facts that Schultz acted inconsistently with the duties of her office and intended to obtain a dishonest disadvantage if the jury found that Schultz used state resources to promote a candidate or to raise money for political campaign purposes.
Commencing Appeal – Effect of Notice of Appeal to Non-Final Order – Construing as Petition for Leave to Appeal
State v. Gary J. Knapp, 2007 WI App 273
For Knapp: Cory C. Chirafisi
Issue/Holding: Dismissal of an appeal as having been directed to a non-final order doesn’t in and of itself bar the court of appeals from deciding to grant leave to appeal, ¶7 n. 2:
In its jurisdictional memoranda, the State asks us to construe its notice of appeal as a petition for leave to appeal in the event that we decline jurisdiction over the appeal.
OWI – State’s Appeal: Collateral Attack on Prior OWI Conviction – Non-Final Order, Permission to Appeal Required
State v. Gary J. Knapp, 2007 WI App 273
For Knapp: Cory C. Chirafisi
Issue/Holding: The State may not appeal as a matter of right from a successful collateral attack on a prior OWI conviction, reducing the pending charge from OWI-3rd to -2nd; instead, the State’s remedy is to seek leave to appeal a non-final order:
¶2 A defendant may collaterally attack a prior conviction to prevent its use as a penalty enhancer when the prior conviction was obtained in violation of the defendant’s right to counsel.
OWI – Appellate Procedure: Finality of Order, State’s Appeal: Collateral Attack on Prior OWI Conviction
State v. Gary J. Knapp, 2007 WI App 273
For Knapp: Cory C. Chirafisi
Issue/Holding: The State may not appeal as a matter of right from a successful collateral attack on a prior OWI conviction, reducing the pending charge from OWI-3rd to -2nd; instead, the State’s remedy is to seek leave to appeal a non-final order:
¶2 A defendant may collaterally attack a prior conviction to prevent its use as a penalty enhancer when the prior conviction was obtained in violation of the defendant’s right to counsel.
Federal Habeas – Procedure – Appellate – Jurisdiction – Timeliness of NOA – Prison Mailbox Rule
Edmund Ingram v. Jones, 507 F. 3d 640 (Nos. 06-2766 & 06-2879, 11/14/07)
Issue/Holding: If a prison has a “legal mailing system,” and the inmate isn’t obligated to pay postage for legal mail, then the notice of appeal may be deemed filed when deposited in the system even without prepaid postage. However, “if a prison does not have a legal mailing system, the prisoner is required to show,
Finality of Order – Trial Court’s Inherent Authority to Reconsider Non-Final Order
State v. Frederick W. Rushing, 2007 WI App 227, PFR filed 10/25/07
For Rushing: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Trial courts possess inherent authority to reconsider any non-final ruling prior to entry of final order or judgment, ¶13, citing State v. Bobby R. Williams, 2005 WI App 221, ¶17, 287 Wis. 2d 748, 706 N.W.2d 355.
The trial court reconsidered its own prior sua sponte vacatur of a guilty plea.
No-Merit Report – Generally
State v. Michael J. Parent, 2006 WI 132, on certification
For Parent: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Amicus: Meredith J. Ross & William E. Rosales
Issue/Holding: (Procedure generally described, State v. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, ¶17, quoted with approval, ¶¶18-23; see also ¶¶35-41, taking note of Wilkinson v. Cowan, 231 F.3d 347 (7th Cir.
Presentence Report – Attorney General’s Right of Access, No-Merit Appeal
State v. Michael J. Parent, 2006 WI 132, on certification
For Parent: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison
AppellateAmicus: Meredith J. Ross & William E. Rosales
Issue/Holding:
¶49 We conclude that the attorney general comes under the purview of Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) and (4m) (2005-06) because, in criminal appeals, the attorney general is often the State’s successor to the district attorney. … We therefore conclude that under §§ 972.15 and 967.02(7) the attorney general’s office should submit any requests to obtain a copy of the PSI report and to disclose its contents in the State’s brief to the circuit court for the purposes of a no-merit appeal.