On Point: K. Standards of Review

State v. Walter Leutenegger, 2004 WI App 127
For Leutenegger: Bill Ginsberg

Issue/Holding: “[The court of appeals is] bound by the most recent pronouncements of the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” ¶5, quoting Jones v. Dane County, 195 Wis. 2d 892, 918 n.8, 537 N.W.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1995). And, ¶10, utilizing same quote: “Therefore, we applyRichter because it is the most recent supreme court decision on the topic.”

But it’s not quite that simple.

State v. Miyosha White, 2004 WI App 237, PFR filed 12/1/04
For White: Leonard Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶7 Here, however, we must first determine whether interpretation of WIS. STAT.§ 973.01(3g), the ERP statute, is governed by Lehman, a decision of this court interpreting the nearly identical language of WIS. STAT. § 973.01(3m),

State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision
For Morford: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue/Holding: ¶33 n. 4:

For discussions of Wisconsin’s views on dictum, see, e.g., State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42, ¶¶60-61 n.16, 261 Wis. 2d 249, 661 N.W.2d 381 (reviewing two lines of cases on dictum); State v. Leitner,

State v. Lucian Agnello II, 2004 WI App 2, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/8/04, on appeal after remand, 2003 WI 44; prior history: State v. Agnello I, 226 Wis.2d 164, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999)
For Agnello: Jerome F. Buting, Pamela Moorshead

Issue: Whether the defendant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea and to have a trial under the supreme court’s mandate in his prior appeal,

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz
Issue/Holding:

¶11. A defendant’s right to testify is a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Simpson, 185 Wis. 2d 772, 778, 519 N.W.2d 662, 663 (Ct. App. 1994). A defendant may, however, waive the right to testify. State v. Wilson, 179 Wis. 2d 660,

State v. Olayinka Kazeem Lagundoye, 2004 WI 4, affirming 2003 WI App 63, 260 Wis. 2d 805, 659 N.W.2d 501
For Lagundoye: Geoffrey Y. Muwonge

Issue/Holding:

¶26. Likewise, it is clear that under Wisconsin’s formulation of the Teague doctrine, the rule we announced in Douangmala was “new.” “‘[A] case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.’” 

State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed, 2004 WI 33
For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding:

¶11. As Gary correctly notes, however, we are not bound by the Ohler decision because the Supreme Court’s holding did not rest on an interpretation of U.S. Constitutional or other “federal law” that we must apply in this case.

State v. Steven G. Walters, 2003 WI App 24, reversed on other grounds, 2004 WI 18
For Walters: Jenelle L. Glasbrenner, David A. Danz
Issue/Holding:

¶25. We cannot ignore the arguments offered by the State at the trial court level at both the motion to exclude before Judge Race and the motion for reconsideration before Judge Carlson. We are troubled by the district attorney’s arguments that a trial court is free to ignore published decisions of the court of appeals.

State v. John P. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, reversing unpublished order of court of appeals
For Hunt: Rex R. Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶43. The State maintains that the court of appeals erred in interpreting Sullivan. We agree. Sullivan does not state, as the decision of the court of appeals suggests, that in situations where the circuit court fails to set forth a detailed analysis for admitting or excluding other-acts evidence,

State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73, on certification (subsequently reversed on other grounds, State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47)
For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose

Issue/Holding: Supreme court disposition of an earlier appeal via summary order is law of the case as to subsequent appeal; the order resolved a question of law despite failing to state reasons: though an affirmance of a discretionary ruling may not determine a question of law,