On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Colin G. Schloegel, 2009 WI App 85
For Schloegel: Sarvan Singh

Issue/Holding: High school student Schloegel was not in custody for Miranda purposes, notwithstanding that he was frisked by police officer, compelled under school policy to consent to search of his car and asked, prior to formal arrest, incriminatory questions; analogy to State v. Dale Gruen, 218 Wis.

State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09
For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding: Defendant’s request to call parents so they could call attorney for him was an insufficiently unequivocal assertion of his right to counsel:

¶36      We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that even if we assume that the defendant made requests to call his parents so that they could call an attorney for him,

State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09
For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding: Where Miranda rights were properly given at the outset of the “first segment” of interrogation, re-administration of rights wasn’t necessary for “second segment,” several hours later, ¶¶24-28.

State v. Dione Wendell Haywood, 2009 WI App 178
For Haywood: Robert E. Haney

Issue/Holding: ¶1 n. 1:

Haywood’s notice of appeal mistakenly asserts that he also appeals “from … the postconviction motion dated December 2, 2008.”  First, Haywood’s appeal is from the circuit court’s order denying his motion, not from the motion.  Second, the circuit court’s order is dated December 1,

Waukesha County v. Genevieve M., 2009 WI App 173
For Genevieve M.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶ 2 n. 2:

The failure of the notice of appeal to correctly identify the final appealable document is not fatal to appellate jurisdiction. See Carrington v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 169 Wis. 2d 211,

 State v. James D. Miller, 2009 WI App 111, PFR filed 8/3/09
Pro se

Issue/Holding: Because sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction is a matter of constitutional dimension, it may be raised via § 974.06 motion, ¶¶25-30.The court’s discussion also indicates, at least implicitly, that the State v. Obea S. Hayes, 2004 WI 80 holding (sufficiency claim not waived on direct appeal even though not raised in trial court) applies in the context of 974.06 review.

State v. Jermaine Smith, 2009 WI App 104
Pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶1        Jermaine Smith appeals from an order denying his “motion to amend his Judgment of Conviction to reflect his common law spiritual name,” which he states is “Marcolo Von Capoeira.” Because Smith’s motion fails to provide any support for his assertion that he used the name Marcolo Von Capoeira for ten years (including four years prior to the time his crime was committed) and because he did not raise this issue during his criminal case,

 State v. Michael Lee Washington, 2009 WI App 148
For Washington: Christopher Lee Wiesmueller

Issue/Holding: ¶1 n. 1:

The State asserts that Washington is precluded from making this argument on appeal because he did not object when the prosecutor made his recommendation before the circuit court. Generally, the failure to object is a “dispositive infirmity.” State v. Grindemann,

State v. Derick G. Vanbeek, 2009 WI App 37, PFR filed 3/13/09
For Vanbeek: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: On conviction for making a false bomb scare, § 947.015, Vanbeek is liable in restitution to the school district for salaries and benefits paid to teachers and staff during the resulting 4-hour evacuation, because the school district was a “direct victim” of the crime.

State v. James D. Lammers, 2009 WI App 136, PFR filed 9/16/09For Lammers: Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding:

¶12      “Plain error” means a clear or obvious error, one that likely deprived the defendant of a basic constitutional right. State v. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, ¶25, 250 Wis. 2d 95, 640 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App. 2001). Wisconsin Stat. § 901.03(4) recognizes the plain error doctrine,