On Point: K. Standards of Review

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State v. Anou Lo, 2003 WI 107, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals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. 

State v. Dennis J. Kivioja, 225 Wis.2d 271, 592 N.W.2d 220 (1999), on certification
For Kivioja: Mark G. Sukowaty.

Issue/Holding: Kivioja pleaded guilty after his codefendant, Stehle, implicated him in a string of burglaries. Following his own sentencing and prior to Kivioja’s, Stehle recanted and Kivioja moved to withdraw his pleas. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing; the court of appeals certified the appeal,

State v. Robert Carnemolla, 229 Wis.2d 648, 600 N.W.2d 236 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Carnemolla: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: No error found in trial court’s credibility-bound denial of new trial based on newly discovered evidence claim:

In the instant case, the trial court found Sautier to be “incredible.”  It also found “that a jury would [not] find []his testimony credible.”  Under McCallum,