On Point

Predick v. O’Connor, 2003 WI App 46

Issue/Holding: ¶12 n. 7:

We note that in this opinion we do cite to two unpublished opinions from other states. Wisconsin Stat. § 809.23(3) does not prohibit us from doing so. In Brandt v. LIRC, 160 Wis. 2d 353, 466 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1991), aff’d, 166 Wis. 2d 623, 480 N.W.2d 494 (1992),

State v. John S. Cooper, 2003 WI App 227, PFR filed 11/14/03
For Cooper: John A. Birdsall
Issue/Holding:

¶23. As a final matter, this court notes with dismay the multiple citations to unpublished opinions contained in Cooper’s appellate brief. The Rules of Appellate Procedure proscribe as follows:

Unpublished opinions not cited. An unpublished opinion is of no precedential value and for this reason may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority,

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 ex rel Unnamed Persons v. State, 2003 WI 30
For Unnamed Persons: Franklyn M. Gimbel, et al.
Issue/Holding:

¶48. On balance, we conclude that Wisconsin Constitution, Article VII, Section 5(3), read together with the language in Wis. Stat. § 808.03(2) and in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.51(1) including “other person or body,” is sufficiently broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding.

State v. Timothy M. Ziebart, 2003 WI App 258
For Ziebart: Robert R. Henak
Issue: Whether defendant was entitled to postconviction discovery on the issue of whether the sexual assault complainant had been located at a drug house and held in custody pending her testimony.
Holding:

¶32. A defendant has a right to postconviction discovery if the desired evidence is relevant to an issue of consequence.

Raz v. Brown, 2003 WI 29
Issue/Holding: Because it is no different in effect from dismissal with prejudice, summary reversal is a “drastic sanction” triggering the test under State v. Smythe, 225 Wis. 2d 456, 592 N.W.2d 628 (1999) and § 809.83(2), and may not be imposed “without finding egregious conduct, bad faith, or a litigant’s abandonment of the appeal.” ¶¶3,

State ex rel. Leslie Schatz v. McCaughtry, 2003 WI 80, reversing 2002 WI App 167, 256 Wis. 2d 770, 650 N.W.2d 67
For Schatz: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Where the court of appeals granted relief on one issue without reaching others raised by the appellant and the supreme court reverses that grant of relief, the case is remanded to the court of appeals for determination of the remaining issues (which were not briefed or otherwise argued in the supreme court).

 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.