Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test, Matter of, 54
| Citation | 234 N.W.2d 345,70 Wis.2d 220 |
| Decision Date | 28 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 54,54 |
| Parties | In the Matter of REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO CHEMICAL TEST. STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. Alfred POWELL, Appellant. (1974). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
Alfred Powell, defendant-appellant, was arrested on November 16, 1973, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, in violation of sec. 346.63(1)(a), Stats. He refused to submit to a chemical test for intoxication as provided in sec. 343.305. The trial judge found Powell's refusal to submit to the test to be unreasonable. The trial court also ordered that Powell's operating privileges be suspended for sixty days pursuant to sec. 343.305(7)(c). The suspension was stayed pending this appeal.
Thomas W. St. John and Robert H. Friebert, Milwaukee (Samson, Friebert, Sutton, Finerty & Burns, Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Albert Harriman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for respondent.
On this appeal, Powell presents several issues which go to the merits of the trial court's finding that Powell's refusal to submit to the chemical test was unreasonable and to the order suspending the operating privileges for sixty days.
However, before this court can consider the merits of a controversy, it must first be established that we have appellate court jurisdiction.
Neither party raised the issue of appealability in their briefs; nevertheless, it was raised at oral argument and the defendant subsequently responded in writing. Furthermore, parties cannot, either by failure to raise the question or by consent, confer jurisdiction upon an appellate court to review an order which is not appealable. Mitler v. Associated Contractors (1958), 3 Wis.2d 331, 333, 88 N.W.2d 672; In re Interest of F.R.W. (a minor) (1973), 61 Wis.2d 193, 212 N.W.2d 130, certiorari denied 416 U.S. 974, 94 S.Ct. 2000, 40 L.Ed.2d 563. In Mitler, supra, this court quoted from Jaster v. Miller (1955), 269 Wis. 223, 234, 69 N.W.2d 265, 271, as follows:
'Neither the waiver or consent of a respondent, nor the willingness of this court to consider a matter in the interests of justice, gives us authority to take jurisdiction where none is conferred by law.'
In the instant case the purported order which is the basis of this appeal was pronounced by the trial court from the bench. It, of course, appears in the transcript of the proceedings in court. The record also contains a one page printed form, denominated 'Minutes,' and captioned 'HEARING ON REFUSAL.' Some of the blank spaces on the form, including those provided for the name of the judge and reporter and deputy clerk have been completed with a typewriter. Other blank spaces have been completed in longhand and one such notation states, 'Motions denied, to be appealed.' The minutes are unsigned. The record contains no written order, signed or unsigned, from the trial judge or from anyone else.
In our opinion this court does not have appellate court jurisdiction and, therefore, the merits of this appeal cannot be considered. There is no written order comporting with the well-established rules of law, which would give this court jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Sec. 270.53, Stats., defines an order as follows:
'(2) Every direction of a court or judge made or entered in writing and not included in a judgment is denominated an order.'
The appellate court is without jurisdiction until an order is entered in writing, State ex rel. Hildebrand v. Kegu (1973), 59 Wis.2d 215, 216, 207 N.W.2d 658. Oral orders are not appealable until reduced to writing. Dumer v. State (1974), 64 Wis.2d 590, 610, 611, 219 N.W.2d 592.
The oral pronouncement of the trial court's determination is not an order in writing. The fact that the reporter properly included the pronouncement in the transcript of the trial court proceeding does not elevate the oral pronouncement of the trial court to the status of a written order. Likewise, the longhand motion, 'Motions denied' in the unsigned minutes of the proceedings cannot be construed as an order of the court in writing.
This does not mean that the oral pronouncement of an order may not be effective insofar as it concerns the parties and the trial court. However, if a party seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court, the order must be in writing. This is necessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. Percy
... ... The Department's refusal to parole a prisoner on the date set in a MAP ... See, e. g., In re Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test: State v. Powell, 70 Wis.2d 220, ... in the rationale that, because parole is a matter of privilege, the question of whether a prisoner ... Sec. 801.54(3), Stats. Based on a predecessor provision, ... ...
-
Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. Nelson
... ... the first judgment related to this matter was issued in 1990, a series of appeals, [348 ... Bryce & Assocs. v. Gladstone, 88 Wis.2d 48, 54, 276 N.W.2d 335 (Ct.App.1979), overruled in part ... ...
-
Popp's Estate, Matter of
...effective, insofar as it concerns the parties and the trial court, even though it has not been reduced to writing. State v. Powell, 70 Wis.2d 220, 222, 234 N.W.2d 345 (1975); State ex rel. Hildebrand v. Kegu, 59 Wis.2d 215, 216, 207 N.W.2d 658 (1973). The judicial act is complete when the o......
-
State v. Peterson
... ... DISCUSSION 7 As a threshold matter, the State asserts that this court lacks ... is determined by the intent-effects test. See State v. Muldrow , 2018 WI 52, 35, 381 Wis ... See Nelson v. State , 54 Wis. 2d 489, 497-98, 195 N.W.2d 629 (1972) (no ... ...