On Point: K. Standards of Review

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State v. John P. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, reversing unpublished order of court of appeals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,

State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 WI 33
For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: A court of appeals holding in a case reversed by the supreme court on other grounds, so that this holding was neither “overruled, withdrawn, or modified,” continues to bind the court of appeals. ¶13.

The court of appeals had held under similar circumstances to Gary M.B.’s that defensive use didn’t trigger waiver, 

Calumet County DHS v. Randall H., 2002 WI 126, on certification

Issue/Holding: Where “the procedural history” and “the underlying facts” are not in dispute, “a determination of whether the facts meet the applicable legal standard” is reviewed de novo.

State v. Edward Terrell Jennings, 2002 WI 44, on certification
For Jennings: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶3. We conclude that when confronted with a direct conflict between a decision of this court and a later decision of the United States Supreme Court on a matter of federal law, the court of appeals may, but is not required to, certify the case to us pursuant to Wis.

State v. Paul L. Polak, 2002 WI App 120, PFR filed 5/3/02
For Polak: Philip J. Brehm
Issue/Holding:

¶15. When an adequate colloquy is not conducted, and the defendant makes a motion for a new trial or other postconviction relief from the trial court’s judgment, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the waiver of the right to counsel was knowing, intelligent and voluntary….¶16.