On Point

State v. Lucian Agnello II, 2004 WI App 2, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/8/04, on appeal after remand, 2003 WI 44; prior history: State v. Agnello I, 226 Wis.2d 164, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999)
For Agnello: Jerome F. Buting, Pamela Moorshead

Issue/Holding:

¶10. Police coercion and a defendant’s personal characteristics are interdependent concepts: the more vulnerable a person is because of his or her unique characteristics,

State v. Jonathan L. Franklin, 228 Wis.2d 408, 596 N.W.2d 855 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Franklin: Archie E. Simonson

Holding: Statement taken in violation of right to counsel rule, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) is not, for that reason alone, involuntary and is therefore admissible for impeachment purposes.

The court doesn’t mention it, but this decision resolves a question held open in State v.

State v. Clyde B. Williams, 230 Wis.2d 50, 601 N.W.2d 838 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Williams: Michael E. Nieskes

Issue: Whether papers must be filed in the county of origin after a successor judge from another county is assigned to the case

Holding: “In this appeal we conclude that when a judge from a different county is assigned to a case in response to a substitution request,

City of Sheboygan v. Laura I. Flores, 229 Wis. 2d 242, 598 N.W.2d 307 (Ct. App. 1999)

In a traffic regulation case, the docket entries – not any judgment or order – reflect the final determination and trigger the notice of appeal deadline.

Fedders v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 230 Wis.2d 577, 601 N.W.2d 861 (Ct. App. 1999)

Issue: Whether a party may cross-appeal of right any interlocutory order after leave to appeal has been granted.

Holding: “(W)e hold that once leave to appeal has been granted, any other interlocutory order is appealable only by leave of this court. We dismiss the notices of cross-appeal filed in this appeal.”

State v. Timothy L. Olson, 226 Wis.2d 457, 595 N.W.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Olson: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Holding:

Timothy L. Olson appeals from an order denying a postconviction motion for relief.  Olson seeks a 256-day sentence credit for the time he served in the Division of Intensive Sanctions (DIS) program before his probation was revoked and he was given a five-year prison sentence.  

.State v. Bobby G. Grant, 230 Wis.2d 90, 601 N.W.2d 8 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Grant: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Grant’s waiver of jury trial was invalid because the trial court failed to advise that the verdict must be unanimous.

Holding: The procedure applicable to challenging guilty pleas, State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986) applies to this context;

State v. Joseph Schultz, 224 Wis.2d 499, 591 N.W.2d 904 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Schultz: Robert R. Raehsler

Issue/Holding: A party in a civil case may seek relief from judgment under Wis. Stats., § 806.07. Where the basis for the motion is “mistake,” the primary question is whether the party’s conduct “was excusable under the circumstances.” Schultz should have been allowed to reopen a judgment so that he could litigate a crucial issue that he justifiably,

State v. Daniel C. Tuescher, 226 Wis.2d 465, 595 N.W.2d 443 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Tuescher: David D. Cook

Issue/Holding: Tusecher’s conviction on one count, out of several counts with concurrent sentences, was vacated for new trial. He continued to serve the remaining sentences, and was ultimately convicted and sentenced on a lesser offense on the vacated count. The court holds that Tuescher is not entitled to sentence credit on the resentenced count for time served between vacating and resentencing.

State v. Richard J. Kenyon, 225 Wis.2d 657, 593 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Kenyon: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: Employee Retirement Income Security Act trumps Victims’ Rights. Kenyon was convicted of stealing about $150,000, and was ordered to pay restitution by “voluntarily” withdrawing funds from his pension fund. The COA reverses, holding that ERISA’s preemption of state attempts to assign or alienate pension benefits prohibits this effort to “create[] an equitable exception to ERISA’s anti-alienation clause.”