On Point: Published 2005

State v. Tommie Thames, 2005 WI App 101
Pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶12      We conclude that Thames’s arguments are procedurally barred. Thames has raised essentially the same issues he raised in his direct appeal and in his 1997 Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion. The fact that Thames’s appeal of the trial court’s order denying his 1997 § 974.06 motion was dismissed pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.83(2) (1997-98) [6] does not change the result.

State v. Ryan E. Baker, 2005 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/17/05
For Baker: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Sentence credit may not be used to satisfy court costs, where costs were imposed under provisions which do not grant authority to waive or otherwise avoid their imposition:

¶11                        We turn now to whether credit for pre-sentence incarceration time may be applied to satisfy court costs.  

State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195
For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶11      A circuit court acts within its discretion in denying without a Machnerhearing a postconviction motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel when: (1) the defendant has failed to allege sufficient facts in the motion to raise a question of fact; (2) the defendant has presented only conclusory allegations;

State v. Joseph P. DeFilippo, 2005 WI App 213
For DeFilippo: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding: To be valid, waiver of right to counsel in criminal trial proceeding must be supported by adequate record, ¶5 (citing State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 203-04, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997)). Where, as here, the record fails to make such a showing (because waiver occurred in an unrecorded conference),

State v. John Doe, 2005 WI App 68
For John Doe: Amelia L. Bizzaro (the court file has been ordered sealed, and the caption amended “to shield the defendant’s identity”)

Issue/Holding:

¶11. We next address the defendant’s allegation that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied his request to file his sentence modification motion under seal. “Documents are presented under seal precisely so that their secrecy might be preserved and disclosure to the public might be prevented.”

State v. Mahlik D. Ellington, 2005 WI App 243
For Ellington: Andrea Taylor Cornwall

Issue/Holding: An objection on relevancy grounds does not preserve a confrontation-based argument, ¶14.

State v. Tremaine Y., 2005 WI App 56, PFR filed 3/4/05
For Tremaine: Robert W. Peterson, Samantha Jeanne Humes, SPD, Milwaukee Trial

Issue: Whether challenge to an earlier change-of-placement delinquency order, as a means of challenging the jurisdictional basis for the current ch. 980 commitment petition, comes too late to be entertained.

Holding:

¶8 The State first responds that Tremaine’s challenge to the 2001 change of placement order is too late,

State v. Somkith Neuaone, 2005 WI App 124
For Neuaone: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: Where the State admitted to breaching the plea bargain, and the defendant was explicitly offered the option of seeking plea-withdrawal but personally affirmed that he did not wish that remedy, the appellate court has “nothing to review on this issue since the trial court was never asked to make a ruling on the question,” ¶12.

State v. William E. Draughon III, 2005 WI App 162, (AG’s) PFR filed
For Draughton: Stephen L. Miller

Issue/Holding: ¶8 n. 2:

We observe that Draughon did not object to the jury instruction when provided the opportunity by the circuit court. Draughon nonetheless raises his objection here under color of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim as well as his claim that the real controversy was not fully tried.

State v. Kenneth V. Harden, 2005 WI App 252
For Harden: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: Holding of Wisconsin supreme court binds the court of appeals, such that dicta in decision of latter court in conflict with supreme court holding must be withdrawn, ¶5 citing, Nommensen v. American Continental Ins. Co., 2000 WI App 230, ¶16, 239 Wis. 2d 129, 619 N.W.2d 137.

Just to be perfectly clear: the court of appeals does not have authority to overrule its ownprecedent,