Opinion ID: 733439
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellate Court's Alleged Failure to Address an Issue

Text: 15 Mainiero submits that the appellate court denied him due process and equal protection by failing to address an issue raised in his brief before that court--whether the trial court improperly admitted extrinsic evidence concerning his character, in violation of a Wisconsin statute governing the admissibility of evidence. Mainiero claims the appellate court departed from the general practice of at least summarily addressing all issues raised on appeal. This is a misstatement of judicial practice in Wisconsin and the law. Wisconsin appellate courts need not address all issues: 16 [A]n appellate court is not a performing bear, required to dance each and every tune played on an appeal.... Any of the ... issues raised and not discussed ... can be deemed to lack sufficient merit or importance to warrant individual attention. 17 State v. Waste Management of Wis., Inc., 81 Wis.2d 555, 261 N.W.2d 147, 151 (1978); see also Schapiro v. Security Sav. & Loan, 149 Wis.2d 176, 441 N.W.2d 241, 245 n. 4 (App.1989); Brandmiller v. Arreola, 189 Wis.2d 215, 525 N.W.2d 353, 356 (App.1994). Moreover, [p]rocedural fairness does not require an appellate court to discuss every issue raised by an appellant.... Kairys v. I.N.S., 981 F.2d 937, 940 (7th Cir.1992). 18 Mainiero points us to unavailing precedents. 5 It is true that the United States Supreme Court has held that if a state chooses to provide an appeal from a criminal conviction (which Wisconsin does provide 6 ) it may not deprive an inmate of the type of appeal generally afforded others convicted of a crime, Dowd v. United States, 340 U.S. 206, 71 S.Ct. 262, 95 L.Ed. 215 (1951), deny the indigent an appeal for his failure to pay for a transcript of trial proceedings, Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956), effectively discriminate against the indigent by not affording him counsel, Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963), impose a double-bond requirement that arbitrarily denies an appeal to poor tenants, Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 92 S.Ct. 862, 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972), or deny an appellant who is afforded an appeal as of right, the effective assistance of counsel, Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985). 7 We fail, however, to understand how these cases support Mainiero's claim. The appellate court afforded Mainiero the type of appeal provided to others convicted of a crime, and it did not discriminate, even in effect, against Mainiero because of his status as a member of a protected class, because of indigence or for any other reason. Mainiero, therefore, was deprived of neither due process nor equal protection.