On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

Leonard L. Jones v. State, 226 Wis.2d 565, 594 N.W.2d 738 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Jones: Colleen D. Ball, Reinhart, Boerner, Van Dueren, Norris & Riesselbach.

Issue/Holding: Procedure for obtaining return of property seized under Uniform Controlled Substances Act is outlined in two seemingly overlapping statutes, §§ 961.55 & 968.20. The former, part of UCSA, mandates that “(a)ny property seized but not forfeited shall be returned to its rightful owner.”

State ex rel. Jose DeJesus Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 225 Wis.2d 446, 593 N.W.2d 48 (1999), original action
For Fuentes: Robert T. Ruth.

The supreme court rectifies loss of the petition for review deadline caused by the court of appeal’s clerical error (failure to mail a copy of decision to appellate counsel). The remedy, which Fuentes followed, is to seek habeas relief in the supreme court. The court grants his petition,

State v. Delano J. O’Brien, 223 Wis.2d 303, 588 N.W.2d 8 (1999), reconsideration denied, 225 Wis.2d 247, 591 N.W.2d 846 (1999), affirming 214 Wis.2d 327, 572 N.W.2d 870 (Ct. App. 1997)
For O’Brien: Martin E. Kohler, John C. Thomure, Jr.

Issue/Holding: O’Brien sought to obtain certain exhibits for postconviction testing. Though the court of appeals enunciated certain guidelines for such postconviction discovery, State v. O’Brien, 214 Wis.

State v. Daniel G. Scheidell, 230 Wis.2d 189, 601 N.W.2d 284 (1999), on reconsideration of State v. Scheidell, 227 Wis.2d 285, 595 N.W.2d 661 (1999).
For Scheidell: Mitchell E. Cooper, SPD, Madison

Holding: Having previously refused to entertain Scheidell’s alternative argument in support of the decision being appealed, 227 Wis. 2d at 288 n. 1, the supreme court on reconsideration, recognizes “that the appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal,

State v. Jene R. Bodoh, 226 Wis.2d 718, 595 N.W.2d 330 (1999), affirming 220 Wis.2d 102, 582 N.W.2d 440 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bodoh: Michael D. Mandelman.

Issue/Holding: Failure to raise an issue in the petition for review waives the right to argue it, though the court may nonetheless reach the merits under certain circumstances:

¶37 We decline to address this issue.

State v. Lucian Agnello, 226 Wis.2d 164, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999), reversing unpublished decision
For Agnello: Jerome F. Buting & Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue/Holding: On a motion to suppress statement, counsel’s bare relevancy objection to an inquiry into the statement’s truthfulness is held sufficient to preserve a Rogers v. Richmond/Jackson v. Denno objection. This holding is summed up by the following passages:

¶12 There is no question that Agnello’s objection was not as specific as it could have been.

State v. Tonnie D. Armstrong, 223 Wis.2d 331, 588 N.W.2d 606 (1999), reconsideration denied, 225 Wis.2d 121, 591 N.W.2d 604 (1999)
For Armstrong: Steven A. Koch and Seymour, Kremer, Nommensen, Morrissy & Koch

Issue/Holding: Armstrong pleaded guilty, with suppression issues (admissibility of oral statements) preserved as matter of law under Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10). The supreme court holds that the trial court’s refusal to order suppression was error,

State v. John J. Watson, 227 Wis.2d 167, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999), reversing unpublished decision
For Watson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Holding: For fact-specific reasons, the state established probable cause to proceed with this 980 case; bindover is established by more than reliance on inadmissible hearsay.

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 227 Wis.2d 316, 595 N.W.2d 692 (1999), afffirming and remanding 221 Wis.2d 401, 585 N.W.2d 637 (Ct. App. 1998).
For Sprosty: T. Christopher Kelley, Thomas, Kelly, Habermehl & Mays.

Issue/Holding:

¶3 We conclude that a circuit court, in its discretion, may consider the availability of facilities to house or to treat a sexual predator under Wis. Stat. § 980.08(4). However,

State v. Michael Love, 227 Wis.2d 60, 594 N.W.2d 806 (1999), reversing State v. Love 218 Wis.2d 1, 579 N.W.2d 277 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Love: Philip J. Brehm.

Holding: Love was represented at sentencing after revocation by an attorney who had been the prosecutor at the original sentencing, 20 months earlier; the attorney couldn’t remember appearing for the state at the original sentencing.