Court Opinion

ID: 9800585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:24:52.239535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:57.958305
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 1. {concurring). The State's and the defendant's motions for reconsideration have been pending in this court for nearly a year. They have obviously troubled the court.
¶ 2. The State and the defendant, opposing parties that generally do not see eye-to-eye on legal or factual issues, agree for the most part in their reconsideration motions. They agree, as do I, that this court erred in the Starks majority opinion in discussing and deciding basic "bread and butter issues," issues that arise frequently in circuit courts and the court of appeals and require clarity for all litigants.
¶ 3. I would not have a full-blown reconsideration of the Starks case. I would, however, have the court revise the Starks opinion in a per curiam response to the motions, as has been our practice in other cases when the court needs to revise an opinion.
¶ 4. Correcting the majority's errors in Starks is important even though defendant Starks may not benefit from any correction of the Starks majority opinion. Indeed both the State's and the defendant's motions acknowledge that Mr. Starks will not personally benefit from their motions.
¶ 5. The court's lengthy discussion of criminal post-conviction and appeal procedure in the Starks majority opinion affects more than the defendant, Starks. It is precedential for all cases and all courts. In their motions for reconsideration, both counsel are acting as officers of the court in seeking reconsideration and *144clarification of the opinion, as well as adversary counsel. They should be commended.
¶ 6. The Starks opinion needs modification. I am concerned that unless a reader is familiar with the State's and the defendant's well-reasoned motions to reconsider the Starks majority opinion, the reader may not fully understand the nature of the errors in the Starks majority opinion and the needed corrections. I have therefore attached to this concurrence a copy of both the State's and defendant's motions to assist the reader.
¶ 7. Other cases raising issues addressed in Starks will come before this court. I would prefer that modifications to the Starks majority opinion be done in a per curiam opinion on the motions to reconsider now rather than piecemeal in other cases.1
¶ 8. For the reasons set forth, I cannot join the order that denies the motions for reconsideration and fails to modify the Starks opinion.
*145APPENDIX A
[[Image here]]
*146[[Image here]]
*147[[Image here]]
*148[[Image here]]
*149[[Image here]]
*150[[Image here]]
*151[[Image here]]
*152[[Image here]]
*153APPENDIX B
[[Image here]]
*154[[Image here]]
*155[[Image here]]
*156[[Image here]]
*157[[Image here]]
*158[[Image here]]

 See, e.g., Kyles v. Pollard, 2014 WI 38, 354 Wis. 2d 626, 847 N.W.2d 805; State v. Romero-Georgana, 2014 WI 83,_Wis. 2d _, 849 N.W.2d 668.