Appellate Practice
Appeals
We help people challenge convictions, sentences, and judgments in Wisconsin state and federal appellate courts.
Appellate advocacy is where we are strongest
A successful appeal requires superior writing. An appeal is not a second trial. No witnesses and no jury—the case is won or lost on the record and in the briefs, before judges who read closely and expect precision. That puts a heavy premium on written advocacy: careful record review, sharp issue selection, and clear, persuasive legal writing. It is exactly the work this firm was built around. We do the quiet stuff better than others — we write better, we think more creatively about legal issues, and we argue with intellectual integrity and nuance rather than noise.
Strang Bradley handles appeals and post-conviction litigation in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. We intentionally keep our caseloads low so that we can read every page of the record, find the issues other lawyers miss, and brief them the way appellate judges want to see them.
State Appeals
Most Wisconsin appeals begin in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and the clock starts running immediately. We handle the full arc of state appellate litigation: postconviction motions in the circuit court, briefing and argument in the Court of Appeals, and petitions for review in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Federal Appeals
This firm was co-founded by Wisconsin’s first Federal Defender, and federal appellate work has been part of its identity ever since — including representation of the lead defendant in United States v. Booker, the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down mandatory federal sentencing guidelines. We brief and argue appeals in the Seventh Circuit and litigate collateral challenges, including federal habeas corpus.
Featured Appellate Victory
Changing Federal Sentencing for Every Defendant in America
Some appeals correct an error in one case. A few change the law for everyone. In United States v. Booker, the United States Supreme Court held that the mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional — a decision that reshaped federal sentencing nationwide and still governs every federal sentence imposed today.
What Happened
A federal jury convicted Freddie Booker of a drug offense based on evidence of 92.5 grams of crack cocaine — a verdict that, under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, supported a sentence of roughly 21 years. But at sentencing, the judge — not the jury — found by a mere preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Booker was responsible for an additional 566 grams and had obstructed justice. Those judge-found facts raised the mandatory range dramatically, and Mr. Booker was sentenced to 30 years in prison: nearly a decade more than the jury’s verdict alone could support.
The Appeal
Dean Strang represented Freddie Booker in his winning appeals to both the Seventh Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. The defense argued that this violated the Sixth Amendment: under Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington, any fact that increases the punishment a defendant faces must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt — not by a judge under a lower standard of proof. The Seventh Circuit agreed, and the government took the case to the United States Supreme Court, where it became the lead case on the constitutionality of the entire federal guidelines system.
The Court’s Decision
On January 12, 2005, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. As a remedy, the Court rendered the Guidelines advisory — restoring to federal judges the discretion to impose individualized sentences, subject to appellate review for reasonableness. Mr. Booker’s own sentence was vacated.
Why This Case Matters
Booker is one of the most consequential criminal decisions of the modern era. Every one of the tens of thousands of federal sentences imposed each year is governed by it. For our clients, it is proof of what appellate advocacy can do at its highest level: a single, carefully built legal argument — pressed through the court of appeals and up to the Supreme Court — changed the law for the entire country.
Strang Bradley Appeals Lawyers Who Worked On This Case
Practice areas
Appeals Practice Areas
We handle appeals and post-judgment litigation across every area we practice — criminal, civil rights, and personal injury — in Wisconsin state and federal court.
- Criminal Appeals An unfavorable verdict or sentence is not always the end. We review the complete trial record for legal error — evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct — and brief the strongest issues in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Deadlines are measured in days after sentencing, so contact us immediately. Learn more
- Federal Appeals Federal appeals move fast and turn almost entirely on the briefs. Co-founded by Wisconsin’s first Federal Defender, our firm is one of relatively few in the state with a substantial federal appellate practice, including the landmark United States v. Booker in the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn more
- Post-Conviction Motions Some of the most powerful challenges rely on facts outside the trial record — ineffective assistance of trial counsel, newly discovered evidence, or a plea that was not knowing and voluntary. We litigate postconviction motions under Wis. Stat. §§ 809.30 and 974.06, including evidentiary hearings where warranted. Learn more
- Sentencing Appeals & Modification A lawful conviction can still produce an unlawful or unduly harsh sentence. We challenge sentences based on inaccurate information, improper factors, and erroneous guideline calculations, and we pursue sentence modification where new factors justify relief. Learn more
- Federal Habeas Corpus When direct appeals are exhausted, federal habeas review — 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for state prisoners and § 2255 for federal prisoners — can be the last path to relief. These cases are procedurally unforgiving, with strict deadlines, and demand counsel who know the terrain. Learn more
- Civil Appeals A civil judgment — whether you won below and must defend it, or lost and want it reversed — deserves the same rigor as any criminal appeal. We represent appellants and respondents in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and the Seventh Circuit. Learn more
- Civil Rights Appeals Civil rights cases frequently turn on complex constitutional questions — qualified immunity above all — that are decided on appeal, often before trial. As Wisconsin’s leading civil rights firm, we brief and argue these appeals in the Seventh Circuit, defending our judgments and challenging adverse rulings. Learn more
- Personal Injury Appeals Insurance companies appeal verdicts they do not like, and trial errors can wrongly erase a deserved recovery. We protect judgments won at trial and pursue reversal when legal error deprived an injured person of fair compensation. Learn more
- Interlocutory & Discretionary Appeals Some rulings are too damaging to wait for final judgment. We petition for leave to appeal non-final orders and pursue supervisory writs where a trial court’s error demands immediate correction. Learn more
- Wisconsin Supreme Court & U.S. Supreme Court Review Review in a court of last resort is discretionary — the petition must persuade the court that the issue matters beyond your case. We draft petitions for review and petitions for certiorari to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Learn more
Answers
Appeals FAQs
-
How long do I have to file an appeal in Wisconsin?
Not long. You should contact an appellate lawyer quickly. In a Wisconsin criminal case, the notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief is generally due within weeks after sentencing. Federal deadlines are often even shorter. Missing these deadlines can forfeit your rights permanently, so contact an appellate lawyer immediately.
-
Is an appeal a new trial?
No. The appellate court does not hear witnesses or take new evidence — it reviews the existing record for legal error. That is why appeals are won with careful record review and persuasive written briefs, a different craft from trial work and one our firm has made central to its practice.
-
Can you handle my appeal if a different lawyer did the trial?
Yes — most of our appellate clients come to us after trial with other counsel. Fresh eyes on the record are often an advantage, and some claims, like ineffective assistance of trial counsel, generally require a new lawyer to raise them.
-
What is the difference between an appeal and a post-conviction motion?
A direct appeal asks a higher court to find legal error in the trial record. A post-conviction motion is filed in the trial court and can rely on facts outside the record — ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, or an unlawful sentence. In Wisconsin criminal cases the two are often pursued together as part of the § 809.30 process, and choosing the right vehicle is part of the strategy.
-
What happens if I win my appeal?
It depends on the error. The court may order a new trial, a new sentencing hearing, suppression of evidence, or entry of judgment in your favor; in some cases the charges or claims are dismissed outright. We will give you an honest assessment of the realistic outcomes before you commit to an appeal.
Considering an appeal? The clock is already running. Contact us right away.
Appellate deadlines are measured in days, not months. Send us the judgment and we will tell you — honestly — whether you have an appeal worth taking. Consultations are confidential.