State v. Bouzek

Citation484 N.W.2d 362,168 Wis.2d 642
Decision Date02 April 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-2076-CR,91-2076-CR
PartiesSTATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alan B. BOUZEK, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin

For the defendant-appellant the cause was submitted on the briefs of Ellen M. Frantz, Johns & Flaherty, S.C., La Crosse.

For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of Kenneth R. Kratz, Asst. Dist. Atty., La Crosse.

Before EICH, C.J., GARTZKE, P.J., and SUNDBY, J.

EICH, Chief Judge.

We hold in this case that a person convicted of violating a harassment injunction contrary to sec. 813.125, Stats., 1 may not collaterally attack the validity of the underlying injunction in a subsequent criminal prosecution for its violation.

The appellant, Alan Bouzek, consented to the issuance of the original injunction prohibiting him from having contact with the petitioner, C.A. He was charged with violating the injunction and entered into a negotiated plea agreement under which he pled guilty to the offense. He received an imposed-and-stayed twenty-month sentence and was placed on probation for a period of two years, conditioned upon serving ninety days in the county jail.

After sentencing, Bouzek filed a postconviction motion in which he sought to vacate the conviction and sentence on grounds that the underlying injunction was overly broad and had been improperly issued. The trial court denied the motion and Bouzek appeals.

He raises the same arguments on appeal and, acknowledging that his guilty plea waives all but jurisdictional defects in his conviction, 2 he asserts that such a defect exists here because the underlying injunction was overbroad and was issued upon inadequate findings of fact.

We do not address the merits of these arguments, however, because they constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the injunction.

In Schramek v. Bohren, 145 Wis.2d 695, 429 N.W.2d 501 (Ct.App.1988), we considered a similar challenge to a domestic abuse injunction issued under sec. 813.12, Stats. That statute authorizes the issuance of injunctions restraining acts of domestic abuse, as the term is therein defined and, like sec. 813.125, makes it a criminal (misdemeanor) offense to violate an injunction. The procedure is in all material respects the same as that found in sec. 813.125. Thus, while Schramek was a civil, not a criminal, case, its holding is equally applicable here.

The plaintiff in Schramek--who previously had been enjoined under sec. 813.12, Stats., from engaging in domestic abuse against her husband--later sued him (and others) asserting a variety of claims, including malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Because those claims (and certain others) were "based on the premise that the underlying injunction was invalid," we dismissed them as impermissible collateral attacks on the original order. Id. at 712-13, 429 N.W.2d at 508.

A collateral attack is an "attempt to avoid, evade or deny the force and effect of a judgment in an indirect manner and not in a direct proceeding prescribed by law and instituted for the purpose of vacating, reviewing, or annulling it." ... For [plaintiff] to ... request consideration in separate proceedings of any cause of action [based on the invalidity of the domestic abuse injunction] would be sanctioning a collateral attack on the order of another [ ]judicial body. [Her] only basis for [an] attack [on the injunction would be] if she had demonstrated fraud in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Campbell, 2006 WI 99 (Wis. 7/12/2006)
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 12 Julio 2006
    ...appeal, which we accepted. ¶ 26 The court of appeals certified the following issues: Is the holding of State v. Bouzek, 168 Wis. 2d 642, 484 N.W.2d 362 (Ct. App. 1992), correct in recognizing a fraud exception to the general rule which bars a collateral attack against an order or judgment o......
  • State v. Campbell
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 12 Julio 2006
    ...Campbell's appeal, which we accepted. ¶ 26 The court of appeals certified the following issues: Is the holding of State v. Bouzek, 168 Wis.2d 642, 484 N.W.2d 362 (Ct.App. 1992), correct in recognizing a fraud exception to the general rule which bars a collateral attack against an order or j......
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 6 Julio 2005
    ...direct proceeding prescribed by law and instituted for the purpose of vacating, reviewing, or annulling it." State v. Bouzek, 168 Wis. 2d 642, 644-45, 484 N.W.2d 362 (Ct. App. 1992) (quoting Schramek v. Bohren, 145 Wis. 2d 695, 713, 429 N.W.2d 501 (Ct. App. 1988)). Bouzek arose from enforce......
  • State v. Sveum
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • 18 Abril 2002
    ...Stats., is a criminal offense. Substantial fines and imprisonment could result. Section 813.125(7).");8State v. Bouzek, 168 Wis. 2d 642, 643-44, 484 N.W.2d 362, 363 (Ct.App. 1992) (holding that a defendant in a criminal prosecution for violating a § 813.125 injunction may not collaterally a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT