Criminal Appeal Brief - Wisconsin

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Cover Page
2. Table of Authorities
3. Statement of the Issues
4. Statement on Oral Argument and Publication
5. Statement of the Case
6. Statement of Facts
7. Standard of Review
8. Argument
9. Conclusion
10. Certification of Length
11. Appendix Certification
12. Certificate of Service

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN

DISTRICT [I / II / III / IV]

BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant:

[________________________________]
[________________________________] (SBN [________________________________])
[________________________________]
[________________________________], Wisconsin [________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Statutes

Rules

I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Issue 1: Whether the circuit court erred in [________________________________].

Circuit Court Ruling: [________________________________]

Issue 2: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for [________________________________].

Circuit Court Ruling: [________________________________]

Issue 3: [________________________________]

Circuit Court Ruling: [________________________________]

II. STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT AND PUBLICATION

☐ Oral argument ☐ is / ☐ is not necessary because [________________________________].

☐ Publication ☐ is / ☐ is not warranted because [________________________________].

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On or about [__/__/____], an ☐ Information / ☐ Complaint was filed in the [________________________________] County Circuit Court charging Defendant-Appellant with:

[Summarize pretrial proceedings, motions, and rulings.]

[________________________________]

On [__/__/____], the case proceeded to ☐ jury trial / ☐ bench trial / ☐ Defendant entered a plea of ☐ guilty / ☐ no contest.

On [__/__/____], the ☐ jury returned a verdict of / ☐ court found:

[________________________________]

On [__/__/____], the circuit court sentenced Defendant-Appellant to:

[________________________________]

(R. [____]:[____].)

Notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief was filed on [__/__/____]. (R. [____]:[____].)

☐ A postconviction motion was filed on [__/__/____] and ☐ denied / ☐ granted in part on [__/__/____]. (R. [____]:[____].)

☐ No postconviction motion was filed because this appeal raises only sufficiency of the evidence or issues previously raised. (Wis. Stat. §§ 809.30(2)(h), 974.02(2).)

Notice of appeal was filed on [__/__/____]. (R. [____]:[____].)

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. State's Case

[________________________________]

(R. [____]:[____].)

B. Defense Case

[________________________________]

(R. [____]:[____].)

C. Postconviction Hearing (if applicable)

[________________________________]

(R. [____]:[____].)

V. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Issue 1: [________________________________]

☐ De novo review applies to questions of law, including constitutional issues and statutory interpretation. (State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127.)

☐ Erroneous exercise of discretion applies to discretionary rulings, including evidentiary decisions and sentencing. The reviewing court examines whether the circuit court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and used a demonstrated rational process to reach a conclusion a reasonable judge could reach. (State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42.)

☐ Sufficiency of the evidence — the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and conviction and determines whether a reasonable jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493 (1990).)

☐ Clearly erroneous applies to findings of fact. (Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2).)

☐ Ineffective assistance of counsel — mixed question of law and fact: the court defers to the circuit court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous but reviews the constitutional question de novo. (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); State v. Thiel, 2003 WI 111.)

Issue 2: [________________________________]

VI. ARGUMENT

A. [ISSUE ONE HEADING IN CAPS]

[________________________________]

1. Relevant Proceedings Below

[________________________________]

(R. [____]:[____].)

2. Applicable Legal Principles

[________________________________]

3. Analysis

[________________________________]

4. Prejudice / Harmless Error

☐ Under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), the constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because [________________________________].

☐ Under State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525 (1985), the non-constitutional error was not harmless because there is a reasonable possibility it contributed to the conviction.

[________________________________]

B. [ISSUE TWO HEADING IN CAPS]

[________________________________]

1. Relevant Proceedings Below

[________________________________]

(R. [____]:[____].)

2. Applicable Legal Principles

[________________________________]

3. Analysis

[________________________________]

4. Prejudice / Harmless Error

[________________________________]

C. [ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS NEEDED]

[________________________________]

VII. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant-Appellant respectfully requests that this Court:

☐ Reverse the judgment of conviction.
☐ Reverse and remand for a new trial.
☐ Modify the judgment as follows: [________________________________].
☐ Vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
☐ Reverse the order denying the postconviction motion and remand for a new trial / Machner hearing.
☐ [________________________________]

Respectfully submitted,

Date: [__/__/____]

_________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

CERTIFICATION OF LENGTH

I certify that this brief conforms to the rules contained in Wis. Stat. § 809.19(8)(b), (bm), and (c) for a brief produced with a proportional serif font. The length of this brief is [________________________________] words.

Date: [__/__/____]

_________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

APPENDIX CERTIFICATION — WIS. STAT. § 809.19(8g)(b)

I certify that the appendix filed with this brief meets the content and confidentiality requirements of Wis. Stat. § 809.19(2)(a) and (am). It contains a table of contents, the circuit court's findings or opinion, any unpublished opinion cited as permitted by § 809.23(3)(a) or (b), and the portions of the record essential to understanding the issues, including rulings showing the circuit court's reasoning.

Date: [__/__/____]

_________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, [________________________________], certify that on [__/__/____], I served the foregoing Brief of Defendant-Appellant on the following parties by the method indicated:

☐ U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid
☐ Electronic service via the Wisconsin Court System eFiling
☐ Hand delivery

Date: [__/__/____]

_________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES FOR WISCONSIN

1. Four Districts: The Court of Appeals has four districts — District I (Milwaukee), District II (Waukesha), District III (Wausau), and District IV (Madison).

2. Postconviction route (§§ 809.30, 974.02): Ordinarily, file and serve a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief within 20 days after sentencing. A postconviction motion precedes the notice of appeal when the grounds require one; a motion is not required for sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges or issues previously raised. Confirm the applicable notice-of-appeal deadline under § 809.30(2)(h).

3. No-Merit Report: If appointed counsel concludes there is no meritorious basis for appeal, counsel files a no-merit report under Wis. Stat. § 809.32. (State ex rel. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 137 Wis. 2d 90 (1987).)

4. Oral Argument / Publication Statement: Include the reasons for requesting or declining oral argument and, if publication is requested, the reasons for it. Wis. Stat. § 809.19(1)(c).

5. Sentencing Standard: Circuit court sentencing decisions reviewed for erroneous exercise of discretion under Gallion factors: (1) gravity of the offense; (2) character of the offender; (3) need to protect the public. (State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42.)

6. Machner Hearing: Ineffective-assistance claims typically require a Machner hearing in the circuit court before appellate review. (State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 (Ct. App. 1979).)

7. Petition for Review: After Court of Appeals decision, a party may petition for review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court within 30 days. (Wis. Stat. § 808.10.)

8. Appendix Required: The brief must be accompanied by an appendix containing relevant portions of the record. (Wis. Stat. § 809.19(2).)