On Point: K. Standards of Review

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.

State v. Darin W. Baratka, 2002 WI App 288, PFR filed 10/20/02
For Baratka: Michael C. Witt

Issue/Holding:

¶7. Application of the implied consent statute to an undisputed set of facts is a question of law that we review independently. Similarly, reconciling constitutional considerations of due process and equal protection with the requirements of the implied consent statute involve questions of law, which we also review independently.

State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App, PFR filed 4/23/02
For Chu: Andrew Shaw

Issue/Holding: Evidence held sufficient, despite disagreement of experts on how fire was started; the jury was required to determine whether defendant intentionally started the fire, not specifically how it was set.

¶44      Chu may instead be arguing that the verdicts should be overturned because the State’s experts could not agree on the precise method of starting the fire,

State v. Paul L. Polak, 2002 WI App 120, PFR filed 5/3/02
For Polak: Philip J. Brehm
Issue/Holding: A defendant need not be produced for a postconviction hearing where there are no substantial issues of fact to resolve. ¶22.

State v. Anou Lo, 2003 WI 107, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Lo: Robert R. Henak
Amicus Briefs: Joseph N. Ehmann, Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD; Meredith J. Ross, Walter J. Dickey, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Retroactivity on collateral attack of a  “new” rule– one imposing a new obligation on the state and not dictated by prior precedent – must satisfy the test of Teague v.

State v. Colleen E. Hansen, 2001 WI 53, 243 Wis. 2d 328, 627 N.W.2d 195, on certification
For Hansen: Pamela Pepper

Issue: Whether a prior decisional pronouncement should be treated as precedential when it is contradicted elsewhere in the decision.

Holding: “Because of the internal inconsistency [in the prior decision], no judicial precedent was established in the first place,” ¶33.

State v. Dennis E. Scott, 2000 WI App 51, 234 Wis. 2d 129, 608 N.W.2d 753
For Scott: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support conviction for burglary/theft.

Holding: Evidence that defendant’s fingerprint was found on the “dock station” from which a lap-top was stolen from an office that sold only to other businesses and was not open to the public; and that defendant neither had worked nor had permission to be there sufficed to support the conviction.

State v. Joel L. Ritchie, 2000 WI App 136, 237 Wis.2d 664, 614 N.W.2d 837
For Ritchie: Steven G. Bauer

Issue: What is the standard of review for an arrest warrant based on a criminal complaint?

Holding: Although review of probable cause to support a complaint is independent, review of probable cause to support an arrest warrant based on a complaint is greatly deferential (same as review of a search warrant).

State v. Keith Jones, 228 Wis.2d 593, 598 N.W.2d 259 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Jones: Edward J. Hunt

Holding: In the course of making their get-away, Jones’s shoplifting codefendant allegedly threatened Shogren, a pursuing guard. Notwithstanding the codefendant’s acquittal, Jones’s conviction for armed robbery is sustained against a sufficiency of evidence challenge.

Here, there was sufficient evidence to convict Jones.  That the jury acquitted Patterson does not necessarily mean that it discounted Shogren’s testimony.