On Point

State v. Dennis Jones, 218 Wis. 2d 599, 581 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Jones: Michael S. Holzman

Issue/Holding:

The State argues that Jones’s Batson objection, made after the jury was sworn, came too late. Jones responds that his objection was timely. We conclude that the defendant must make a Batson objection prior to the time the jury is sworn. If the objection is not made until after that time,

State v. Vance Ferron, 219 Wis.2d 481, 579 N.W.2d 654 (1998), affirming, as modified, 214 Wis. 2d 268, 570 N.W.2d 883 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Ferron: Jane Krueger Smith

Issue: Whether a prospective juror’s equivocations during voir dire required that he be struck for cause.

Holding: The trial court erred in refusing to strike for cause a potential juror who acknowledged only that he “probably” could set aside his opinion that a truly innocent defendant would testify.

State v. Spriggie Hensley, Jr., 221 Wis. 2d 473, 585 N.W.2d 683 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Hensley: Pro se

Issue/Holding: The rule that a defendant’s representation by the same attorney at trial and on direct appeal constitutes a “sufficient reason” for not asserting ineffective assistance of counsel in the direct appeal survives State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis.2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994).

State v. Donald Mentzel, 218 Wis. 2d 734, 581 N.W.2d 581 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Mentzel: Raymond M. Dall’Osto

Issue/Holding:

We agree with the logic of Napoles. For purposes of § 974.06, Stats., the reality of a probationary status is that it results directly from the trial court’s consideration of dispositional alternatives at a sentencing hearing. Subject to any other bars, we conclude that all defendants on probation have standing to pursue postconviction relief under § 974.06.

State v. LaMontae D.M., 223 Wis.2d 503, 589 N.W.2d 415 (Ct. App. 1998)
For LaMontae: Terry Rose

Issue/Holding: A juvenile’s absconding from a residential treatment center forfeits his/her right to appeal the delinquency adjudication that placed him in the center. In other words, State v. Braun, 185 Wis. 2d 152, 516 N.W.2d 740 (1994), which applies an appeal-forfeiture rule to an adult absconder, extends fully to juvenile absconders.

A footnoted discussion concerning appellate counsel’s duty of pre-appeal discussion with the client should be of some interest.

State v. James D. Minniecheske, 223 Wis.2d 493, 590 N.W.2d 17 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Minniechske: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether the sentencing court possessed authority to order refund of money ($1500+) improperly seized from Minniecheske’s prison account to satisfy restitution.

Holding:

We conclude that the trial court correctly amended the judgment of conviction to remove the restitution obligation.[1]  We further agree that,

State v. Crystal L. Bizzle, 222 Wis. 2d 100, 585 N.W. 899 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bizzle: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

To define “crime prevention organization” to include law enforcement agencies would lead to absurd results. By ordering a defendant to make a contribution to a “crime prevention organization,” a court could order a defendant to repay internal operating expenses of a police department and routine operating expenses of the State Crime Laboratory or return drug “buy money”

State v. Darcy N.K., 218 Wis. 2d 640, 581 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Darcy K.: Kenneth L. Lund, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: A party who prevailed at the trial level is judicially estopped, on appeal, from challenging the trial court’s favorable action taken at his or her own request.

State v. Dennis Jones, 218 Wis. 2d 599, 581 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Jones: Michael S. Holzman

Issue/Holding:

The State argues that Jones’s Batson objection, made after the jury was sworn, came too late. Jones responds that his objection was timely. We conclude that the defendant must make a Batson objection prior to the time the jury is sworn. If the objection is not made until after that time,

State v. Paul R. Benzel, 220 Wis. 2d 588, 583 N.W.2d 434 (Ct. App. 1998)
Pro se

Issue/Holding: The holding of State v. Hall, 207 Wis.2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997), that the drug tax, § 139.95, is unconstitutional applies retroactively: “failure to do so leads to the untenable result that a person stands convicted for conduct which has been held constitutionally immune from punishment. … (¶) A court cannot acquire jurisdiction to try a person for an act made criminal only by an unconstitutional law.”