On Point

State v. Denis L.R., 2004 WI App 51, affirmed on other grounds, 2005 WI 110
For Denis L.R.: Richard Hahn; Dwight D. Darrow

Issue/Holding: ¶10, n. 3: Dawn originally commenced this appeal by filing a petition for leave to appeal a nonfinal order. However, we determined that the order was final because it concluded a special proceeding with respect to the confidentiality privilege held by Dawn on behalf of Kirsten.

State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Evans: Robert R. Henak
Issue/Holding:

¶30. During postconviction proceedings, a defendant must choose between being represented by the SPD, proceeding pro se, or securing private representation. State v. Redmond, 203 Wis. 2d 13, 19, 552 N.W.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1996). A defendant does not have the right to hybrid representation on appeal.

State v. Henry W. Aufderhaar, 2004 WI App 208, PFR filed 11/16/04

For Aufderhaar: J. Paul Neumeier Jr.; Raymond E. Krek

Issue/Holding:

¶1 The major holding here is that when this court accepts an interlocutory appeal, the appellant is limited to briefing only those issues presented in the petition for leave to appeal and may not raise additional issues without the prior consent of the court.

State v. Kenneth A. Hudson, 2004 WI App 99
For Hudson: David D. Cook
Issue/Holding:

¶11. Hudson first argues that under Wis. Stat. § 974.07(6)(a), the State must “make available” physical evidence containing biological material for independent DNA testing. Subsection (6)(a) states:

Upon demand the district attorney shall disclose to the movant or his or her attorney whether biological material has been tested and shall make available to the movant or his or her attorney the following material:1.  

State v. Kenneth A. Hudson, 2004 WI App 99
For Hudson: David D. Cook
Issue/Holding:

¶13. Hudson also argues he is entitled to court-ordered DNA testing under Wis. Stat. § 974.07(7)(a). Subsection (7)(a) requires the trial court to order DNA testing when the following four conditions are met:

A court in which a motion under sub. (2) is filed shall order forensic deoxyribonucleic acid testing if all of the following apply:   1.  

State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2004 WI App 39, PFR granted 4/20/04
For Schulpius: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Pendency of appeal doesn’t prevent trial court from hearing motion to reconsider, ¶33, n. 8:

Second, Schulpius argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant on November 29, 2000, the State’s motion for reconsideration because the case was then on appeal.

State v. John S. Provo, 2004 WI App 97, PFR filed 5/7/04
For Provo: William H. Gergen
Issue/Holding:

¶19 … Further, Provo has not made the transcript of the plea hearing a part of the record. Consequently, we must assume that the transcript of that hearing supports the trial court’s finding that Provo’s plea was not coerced. See State v. McAttee,

State ex rel Kim J. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130

Issue/Holding:

 ¶12. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the only reasonable reading of Wis. Stat. § 802.06, as applied to certiorari proceedings, is that a party who has unsuccessfully moved to dismiss on other grounds may still seek dismissal grounded on claim preclusion at any time before the court has considered the merits of the petitioner’s claims.

State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90
For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶13. Restitution awarded under Wis. Stat. § 973.20(5)(a) is limited in two ways relevant to our present analysis. First, before a trial court may order restitution “there must be a showing that the defendant’s criminal activity was a substantial factor in causing” pecuniary injury to the victim. 

State v. Rex E. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20, PFR filed 1/8/04
For Wollenberg: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶12. Second, assuming this was a DPA, Wollenberg claims the judgment is void because the agreement was never in writing. Wollenberg, however, invited the error he alleges, and we normally will not review invited error. See Atkinson v. Mentzel,