News

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept six new cases, and the Court acted to deny review in a number of other cases. The case numbers, counties of origin, and the issues presented in granted cases are listed below. More detailed synopses will be released at a later date. More information about pending appellate cases can be found on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Access website. Published Court of Appeals opinions can be found here, and the status of cases pending in the Supreme Court can be found here.

Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District III
Circuit Court: Door County, Judge David L. Weber, affirmed
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Carrie E. Counihan, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner

Issues presented:

1. Whether one’s right to due process at sentencing is violated when the circuit court conducts an independent investigation of “similar” cases and relies on these cases as the “most significant” of all information at sentencing but failed to give the parties advance notice of such to allow the defense to review and rebut this information.

2. Whether one forfeits her due process claim when during the court’s pronouncement of sentence, the court first reveals that it conducted its own investigation and relied on information it discovered in determining a sentence but counsel did not interrupt to object.

3. Whether a defendant, in establishing the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing claim, must show that the outcome of the proceeding – the sentence – would have been different? Also, whether Counihan was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

2017AP2292-CR                   State v. Donavinn D. Coffee

Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District I  
Circuit Court: Milwaukee County, Judge Frederick C. Rosa, affirmed
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Donavinn D. Coffee, defendant-appellant-petitioner

Issues presented:      

1. Does a defendant forfeit his constitutional due process right to be sentence [sic] based only upon accurate information by failing to make a contemporaneous objection at the time of sentencing when the nature of the inaccuracy could not have been reasonably determined by effective counsel at the time the misinformation is presented to the court at the sentencing hearing?

2. Was Mr. Coffee sentenced in violation of his constitutional due process right to be sentenced based only upon accurate information?

2018AP2162                   Town of Wilson v. City of Sheboygan

Supreme Court case type: Bypass
Court of Appeals: District II
Circuit Court: Sheboygan County, Judge Daniel J. Borowski
Long caption: Town of Wilson, plaintiff-appellant, v. City of Sheboygan, defendant-respondent

Issues presented:

1. Was the Kohler Company’s petitioned-for annexation a contiguous annexation under Wisconsin’s annexation statutes, when Kohler admitted it constructed a narrow string of properties to connect its land to Sheboygan in order to avoid the Town of Wilson and its residents and construct a golf course in the Town (and more than a mile away from Sheboygan)?

2. Did the annexation strictly comply with the statutes when the Department of Administration did not certify the population count or estimate set forth in Kohler’s petition?

3. Did the annexation strictly comply with the signature requirements in Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(3), Kohler used the “one half” of “assessed value” for measuring signatures, even though no “assessed value” was available for the hundreds of acres of state land Kohler included in the petition, and the “unit of acreage” measure provided in the statute was available to ensure all land in the annexation was accounted for in the signature requirement?

4. Did Kohler’s annexation petition satisfy the judicial rule of reason, and specifically the requirements that a need be demonstrated for the annexation, and that Sheboygan did not abuse its discretion in approving the annexation, where Kohler admitted it did not need to annex to Sheboygan but did so because of political opposition to its development in the Town?

2017AP880-W                   Joshua M. Wren v. Reed Richardson

Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District I 
Circuit Court: Milwaukee County, Judge Carolina Stark (Court of Appeals denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus)
Long caption: State of Wisconsin ex rel. Joshua M. Wren, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. Reed Richardson, Warden, Respondent

Issues presented:

1. Whether Mr. Wren was deprived of his direct appeal due to the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel.

2. Whether the defense of laches should preclude granting relief to Mr. Wren

2018AP1681                    Steven J. Piper v. Jones Dairy Farm

1. Are the Plaintiffs’ state law claims for compensation for donning and doffing activities subject to the Parties’ historical negotiations and enforcement of their collective bargaining agreements, thus rendering those activities non-compensable?

2. Are the Plaintiffs’ state law claims for compensation for donning and doffing activities subject to the doctrines of equitable estoppel, laches, wavier, and/or unjust enrichment, in light of the many successive collective bargaining agreements Plaintiffs agreed to and benefited from, and thus rendering those activities non-compensable?

3. Are the Plaintiffs’ state law claims for compensation for donning and doffing activities subject to the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex, thus rendering those activities non-compensable?

2018AP53-CR                   State v. Dennis Brantner

Supreme Court case type: Petition for Review
Court of Appeals: District II
Circuit Court: Fond du Lac County, Judge Peter L. Grimm, summarily affirmed
Long caption: State of Wisconsin, plaintiff-respondent v. Dennis Brantner, defendant-appellant-petitioner

Issue presented: Does Wis. Stat. § 971.36 or prosecutorial charging discretion allow for seven separate acts of retail theft of merchandise valued at $126-$314 each and committed over a two-week period to be charged as a single count of felony retail theft of merchandise totaling $1,452.12?

1. Do the United States and Wisconsin Constitutional protections against double jeopardy bar the State from punishing a criminal defendant twice for violations of Wis. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(am) for possessing pills containing different doses of the same substance at the same time?

2. When an individual is arrested in one county with controlled substances on his person and transported in police custody to a different county where the substances are removed from the individual’s person during the booking process, does a trial for possession of the controlled substances in the destination county violate the individual’s rights under Article I, Section VII of the Wisconsin Constitution and Wis. Stat. § 971.19?

Review denied: The Supreme Court denied review in the following cases. As the state's law-developing court, the Supreme Court exercises its discretion to select for review only those cases that fit certain statutory criteria (see Wis. Stat. § 809.62). Except where indicated, these cases came to the Court via petition for review by the party who lost in the lower court:

Brown
17AP2063         Soletski v. Krueger International, Inc.
17AP2170-CRNM       State v. Heller

Dane
18AP1152         Renier v. Litscher
19AP109         State v. Gant

Fond du Lac
17AP2399-2400-CR         State v. Habram

Forest
16AP1260-CRNM         State v. Jones
17AP2266       City of Crandon v. Morris

Green
18AP1641-1643         S.M.G. v. C.H.B.

Juneau
18AP874-CR         State v. Alexander

Kenosha
18AP133-CR         State v. Tovar-Medina

La Crosse
18AP128-CR         State v. Hanson

Marathon
17AP1449-CR         State v. Malueg

Marinette
17AP1476-CR         State v. Kudelka

Marquette
18AP169-CR         State v. Bauer

Milwaukee
17AP1834         State v. Carpenter – Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet did not participate.
17AP1863-CR         State v. Stechauner
17AP2202-CR         State v. Brookshire
17AP2289-CR         State v. Sabo
17AP2323-CR         State v. Miller
18AP252-CR         State v. Jackson – Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet did not participate.
18AP253-254-CR         State v. Moore
18AP330-CR         State v. Ashley
18AP404-407         State v. Lusk – Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet did not participate.
18AP416         Bach v. LIRC – Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack and Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler did not participate.
18AP560-CR         State v. Kennedy
18AP637-CR         State v. Micklevitz
18AP680         State v. Rowell
18AP896-CR         State v. Jackson
18AP1111-CR         State v. McDade
18AP2113-2115         State v. S.M.T.
19AP330-W         Hall v. Richardson – Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet did not participate.

Ozaukee
17AP2293         Korth v. Hoffman – Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack and Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler dissent.

Portage
17AP163-CR         State v. Reinwand

Racine
17AP764-765-CR         State v. Hand
17AP1611         State v. Czysz
18AP574         Lother v. Hayes

Rock
17AP2256-2257-CR         State v. McConochie

Shawano
18AP4-CR         State v. Davis

Taylor
17AP1890/2147         Webster v. Krizan

Walworth
17AP2420-CR         State v. Pierce
18AP1035-CR       State v. Gentzen
18AP1562       Walworth County DH & HS  v. A.J.S.
19AP151-W       Gardipee v. Circuit Court for Walworth County

Washington
18AP1309-CR         State v. Holihan

Waukesha
18AP752         Craycraft v. Franklin Credit Management Corp.

Winnebago
18AP892-CR         State v. Hackett
18AP1247         Airola v. Ford Motor Company

Contact:
Tom Sheehan
Court Information Officer
(608) 261-6640