State v. Dingman

Decision Date15 April 1941
Citation237 Wis. 584,297 N.W. 367
PartiesSTATE v. DINGMAN.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeals from a judgment and an order of the Circuit Court for Wood County; Byron B. Park, Circuit Judge.

Elmer Dingman, alias Earl Smith, was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. On motion to dismiss the appeals.-[Editonal Statement].

Motion granted and appeals dismissed.

The facts will be stated in the opinion.

Harold v. Schnoenecker, of Milwaukee (Stewart G. Honeck, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellant.

John E. Martin, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Daniel T. Hosek, Dist. Atty., of Marshfield, for respondent.

ROSENBERRY, Chief Justice.

The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on October 10, 1935. There was a motion for a new trial which was denied on the 1st day of March, 1937. Notice of appeal from the order and judgment was dated December 16, 1940, and was served on the 18th day of December, 1940. The record was remitted to this Court and the Attorney General moves that the appeals be dismissed because not taken within the time limited by law. Because of the fact that an appeal was not timely taken in this case counsel for the defendant now seeks to get the matter before this Court upon the contention that there is a conflict in the statutes with respect to the time within which an appeal should be taken in a criminal case.

Sec. 358.11, Wisconsin stats., is as follows: “Writs of error in criminal cases may issue and bills of exception may be served, noticed and settled in the manner and within the time, and motions for new trial may be made upon the same grounds, provided by law in civil cases, but no writ of error upon a judgment of conviction for an offense punishable by imprisonment for life shall issue unless allowed by one of the justices of the supreme court upon notice given to the attorney-general; and no writ of error in any criminal case shall stay or delay the execution of the judgment unless it shall be allowed by one of the justices of the supreme court, with an express order for such stay of proceedings; in which case such justice of the supreme court may, at the same time, make such order as the case may require for the custody of the plaintiff in error or for letting him to bail, or such plaintiff in error may, upon a habeas corpus, procure his enlargement by giving bail if entitled thereto.”

That section has been in force in substantially the same form for many years and was sec. 4720 of the stats. of 1898.

Sec. 358.13 was introduced into the statutes by the enactment of ch. 333 of the Laws of 1927. The last...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Dingman
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1941
    ...the judgment were dismissed on April 15, 1941, on the ground that they were not taken within the time limited by statute. State v. Dingman, 237 Wis. 584, 297 N.W. 367. On the trial which resulted in Dingman's conviction on October 10, 1935, the matter in controversy was principally the iden......

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