On Point

City of Fond du Lac v. Scott R. Kaehne, 229 Wis.2d 323, 599 N.W.2d 870 (Ct. App. 1999).

Holding: In civil action (here, OWI 1st), appearance of defendant may be made by letter, rather than in person, therefore time limit for demanding jury trial began running when defendant sent letter to court stating intent to plead not guilty.

State v. Audrey A. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Edmunds: Dean A. Strang.
Holding: Edmunds is held to have waived her right to be present when the parties and the court discussed dismissal of a juror for cause. The dismissal is upheld, where the juror conveyed opinions about the case, before hearing all evidence.

State v. Frank Curiel, 227 Wis.2d 389, 597 N.W.2d 697 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Curiel: Jack. C. Hoag, Sedor & Hoag

Holding: “¶6. …. We hold that appellate court review of challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in ch. 980 proceedings should be that standard applied in criminal cases.” Curiel argues that the standard should be a mixed question of law and fact. The court holds that,

State v. David C. Liebnitz, 231 Wis.2d 272, 603 N.W.2d 208 (1999), on certification
For Liebnitz: Rex R. Anderegg.

Issue: Whether the defendant sufficiently admitted to an alleged repeater allegation so as to justify enhanced sentencing where, although he never disputed the allegation and in fact received the bargained-for sentence, he never distinctly admitted the repeater allegation.

Holding: Because the complaint and information both set forth the details of the repeater allegation along with the enhanced penalty;

Leonard L. Jones v. State, 226 Wis.2d 565, 594 N.W.2d 738 (1999), affirming unpublished decision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.