Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Briefs — Argument — Pinpoint Citations for Cited Caselaw
State v. Darren A. Kliss, 2007 WI App 13
For Kliss: Michael C. Witt
Issue/Holding: ¶6 n. 4:
We observe that Kliss, in his appellate brief, is inconsistent in his use of pinpoint citations for the case law he invokes to support his legal contentions. Wisconsin Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(e) requires the appellant to support its contentions with citations conforming to the Uniform System of Citation and Supreme Court Rule 80.02.
Briefs – Argument – Concession of Error by State
State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶14 … The State concedes before this court, as it did in the court of appeals, that Johnson did not freely consent to the search of his vehicle. [4] …
[4] The dissent faults the State for making this concession.
Briefs: Failure of Reply Brief to Respond to Argument
Dane Co. DHS v. Dyanne M., 2007 WI App 129, PFR filed 4/23
For Dyanne M.: Phillip J. Brehm
Issue/Holding: Reply brief failure to address argument raised in response brief may be deemed conceded for purposes of appeal, ¶23 n. 7, citing Hoffman v. Economy Preferred Ins. Co., 2000 WI App 22, ¶9, 232 Wis. 2d 53,
Briefs – Response Brief Failure to Address Argument, as Implicit Concession
State v. Dawn R. Dartez, 2007 WI App 126, PFR filed 4/23
For Dartez: Bill Ginsberg
Issue/Holding: Failure of a response brief to dispute a proposition in appellant’s brief may be taken as implicit concession of the proposition, ¶6 n. 3.
Notice of Appeal – Notice of Appeal – Contents – Inconsequential Errors
State v. Patrick Jackson, 2007 WI App 145, PFR filed 6/6/07
For Jackson: Marcella De Peters
Issue/Holding: Footnote 1:
Patrick Jackson’s notice of appeal says that he is appealing the trial-court order denying his motion for postconviction relief. The notice of appeal does not also indicate that he is also appealing from the judgment of conviction. This defect, however, is not fatal to our review of Jackson’s contention that the judgment was improperly entered against him.
John Doe Proceeding – Review of, by Supervisory Writ
State ex rel. Adrian T. Hipp v. Murray, 2007 WI App 202, (AG’s) PFR filed 8/16/07Pro se
Issue/Holding: Review of a judge’s actions in a John Doe proceeding aren’t subject to direct appeal, but may be reviewed by writ of mandamus:
¶9 The parties agree that we review Judge Murray’s actions in connection with Hipp’s John Doe petition via mandamus. See State of Wisconsin ex rel.
Sentence Credit, § 973.155 – Parolee Released to Another Jurisdiction not Entitled to Credit for Time Served There Against Subsequent Revocation of Wisconsin Parole
State v. Esteban Martinez, 2007 WI App 225
For Martinez: George Limbeck
Issue/Holding: A Wisconsin inmate paroled to serve sentence in another jurisdiction is not entitled to credit for that service against subsequently-revoked Wisconsin parole; State v. Rohl, 160 Wis. 2d 325, 466 N.W.2d 208 (Ct. App. 1991), followed and State v. Kevin Brown, 2006 WI App 41, distinguished:
¶16 Rohl subsequently filed a motion for sentence credit.
Sentence Credit – Extended Supervision Hold
State v. Terrill J. Hintz, 2007 WI App 113, (AG’s) PFR granted 9/11/07
For Hintz: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Where an extended supervision hold is based at least in part on arrest on a new offense, § 973.115(1)(a) awards credit for time spent in custody under the hold against the sentence ultimately imposed for conviction of that offense.
Note that it does not matter that a signature bond was issued for the new offense:
¶11 Finally,
Postconviction Motions – Evidentiary Hearing – Claim of Denial of Effective Counsel Due to Client’s Severe Hearing Impairment
State v. Dwight Glen Jones, 2007 WI App 248
For Jones: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶13 Although an indigent defendant does not have the right to pick his or her trial lawyer, Mulkovich v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 464, 474, 243 N.W.2d 198, 203–204 (1976) (“This court has frequently said that, except in cases of indigency, a defendant may have whatever counsel he chooses to retain and may refuse to accept the services of counsel he does not want.”),
Waiver of Argument
State v. Thomas C. Burton, 2007 WI App 237
For Burton: Timothy A. Provis
Issue/Holding:
¶11 As to the lack of contemporaneous objection, we note that Burton argued strenuously before Warmington testified that his proposed testimony would be irrelevant and prejudicial, and asked that he be subjected to a voir dire outside the jury’s presence. The circuit court denied Burton the requested voir dire [1] and further ruled that Warmington could offer testimony going to the truthfulness of the witnesses and to Burton’s intent.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.