State v. Tony Morgan

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED NOTICE November 21, 1995 A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See § 808.10 and RULE 809.62, STATS. This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. No. 95-2021-CR STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT I STATE OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TONY MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: ELSA C. LAMELAS, Judge. Affirmed. FINE, J. Tony Morgan appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a jury trial, of carrying a concealed weapon. See § 941.23, STATS. The only issue he raises on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in not granting his motion to dismiss at the end of the State's case in chief. This issue was waived, however, when Morgan presented evidence rather than resting. See State v. Gebarski, 90 Wis.2d 754, 773 774, 280 N.W.2d 672, 680 681 (1979). Although the issue then becomes whether there is evidence in the record as a whole, including evidence adduced during the defendant's case, ibid., Morgan has not argued or briefed whether the evidence as a whole is sufficient to support his conviction. Cf. State v. Pettit, 171 Wis.2d 627, 646-647, 492 N.W.2d 633, 642 (Ct. No. 95-2021-CR App. 1992) (appellate court may decline to address issues that are inadequately briefed). We have no obligation to consider an issue that Morgan has not raised, see Waushara County v. Graf, 166 Wis.2d 442, 453, 480 N.W.2d 16, 20 (1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 269, nor will we develop an argument for him, see State v. West, 179 Wis.2d 182, 195 196, 507 N.W.2d 343, 349 (Ct. App. 1993), aff'd, 185 Wis.2d 68, 517 N.W.2d 482 (1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 375 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm. By the Court. Judgment affirmed. This opinion will not be published. See RULE 809.23(1)(b)4, STATS. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.