On Point: B. Published opinions

U.S. Bank National v. City of Milwaukee, 2003 WI App 220

Issue/Holding: fn. 4:

The brief submitted to us by the City of Milwaukee is overly tendentious and lacks the civility that lawyers owe to both their adversaries and to the courts. The following has no place in a brief before any court in this state: accusing an opposing party of seeking “political anarchy” … of “creating a `sideshow,’”

State ex rel. Dillard Earl Kelley, 2003 WI App 81

Issue/Holding: The prison mailbox rule of State ex rel. Nichols v. Litscher, 2001 WI 119 (petition for review filed after nominal deadline timely nonetheless if submitted before deadline to prison authorities for mailing by pro se prisoner) extended here to notice of appeal to dismissal of habeas corpus challenging custody; and, rule’s requirement that document be properly addressed satisfied if addressed to branch clerk of Milwaukee court:

¶11.

State v. Rick L. Edwards, 2003 WI App 221, PFR filed 10/24/03
For Edwards: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: A probationer whose jail confinement has been stayed during a period of hospitalization is not in custody for § 946.42 purposes and can’t be charged with escape for leaving the hospital and failing to return to jail; nor, as a result, is there any entitlement to sentence credit while the jail confinement is stayed.

 State v. Rick L. Edwards, 2003 WI App 221, PFR filed 10/24/03
For Edwards: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:

¶8. As a threshold matter, we reject Edwards’ challenge to the trial court’s order staying Edwards’ conditional jail time because the order was issued ex parte and without notice. We hold that Edwards failed to raise this issue with sufficient prominence before the trial court.

State v. Mark M. Loutsch, 2003 WI App 16, PFR filed 1/17/03; X-PFR filed 1/31/03
For Loutsch: Charles B. Vetzner

Issue/Holding:

¶20. When the trial court has the authority to order restitution for a loss, the court’s decision to order restitution in a particular amount is committed to the trial court’s discretion. Holmgren, 229 Wis. 2d at 366.

State v. Shon D. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, PFR filed 2/3/03
For Brown: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Where defendant was charged with theft and operating without consent relating to property and a vehicle that he had permission to take but failed to deliver to the agreed out-of-state destination, his proffer that he drove to a truck stop where he abandoned the vehicle was insufficient to preserve the issue of whether the trial erred in excluding his testimony due to failure to comply with notice of alibi requirement,

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. Oscar A. Rash, 2003 WI App 32, PFR filed 2/25/03
For Rash: Peter Koneazny, Diana Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the restitution order for damage to the victim’s car was supported by sufficient causation, where the defendant abducted the victim for 20-30 minutes, during which time the unattended and unlocked car was broken into by unknown actor(s).

Holding:

¶6. “Before restitution can be ordered”

State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03
For Ross: Andrew Mishlove

Issue/Holding: Ross was convicted of a pattern of racketeering involving securities fraud contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 551.41(2) and 946.82(2), (3), (4) and 946.83 (WOCCA). This pattern of racketeering, based in fraudulent activities occurring in Wisconsin and contrary to the securities law, also affected investors in other parts of the country. By claiming at various times that the securities he was selling were registered in Wisconsin (which implied disclosure) when they were not,