State v. Koopman
| Decision Date | 28 February 1967 |
| Citation | 34 Wis.2d 204,148 N.W.2d 671 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. Kenneth KOOPMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Richard B. McConnell, Waukesha, for appellant.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, and Betty R. Brown, Asst. Attys. Gen., Madison, Roger P. Murphy, Dist. Atty., Waukesha County, Waukesha, for respondent.
The sole issue involved on this appeal is as follows:
Is an order of a magistrate denying a motion for transfer of the case to
juvenile court an appealable order subject to review by this
court? Order of Magistrate--Appealability of:
Appellate Jurisdiction of this Court to Review.
William G. Callow
denying defendant's motion for transfer to juvenile court.
The state contends the order by Judge CALLOW was an order of a magistrate and is not appealable. Counsel for defendant concedes the order was that of a magistrate and is not appealable, but contends that since the issue relating to jurisdiction of the juvenile court is of first impression in Wisconsin the appeal should not be dismissed.
Appeal in criminal cases is purely a statutory right. Sec. 958.13, Stats., provides:
A criminal appeal or writ of error may be taken from a final judgment or order in the nature of a final judgment. Babbitt v. State 1 defines a final judgment or order in the nature of a final judgment.
'A final judgment or an order in the nature of a final judgment, for the purposes of review by writ of error (or appeal), is a judgment or order which not only affects a substantial right of a party, but in addition, the impact of the judgment or order upon the party's rights cannot be affected by subsequent proceeding before the same tribunal.' 2
Martin v. STATE CITED IN BABBITT, SUPRA3, as authority for the foregoing proposition additionally states:
'The general rule is that the writ lies after final judgment, or after an order in the nature of a final judgment, rendered in a court of law * * *.' 4 (Emphasis supplied.)
The order upon which defendant has predicated this appeal did not end the proceedings or prevent a final judgment, nor is it an order by 'a court of law.'
Sec. 251.08, Stats., provides in part:
'The supreme court shall have and exercise an appellate jurisdiction only, * * * which shall extend to all matters of appeal, error or complaint from the decisions or judgments of any of the circuit or county courts and shall extend to all questions of law which may arise in said courts upon a motion for a new trial, in arrest of judgment, or in cases reserved by said courts.' (Italics supplied.)
Proceedings before a magistrate are not proceedings by a court. 5
6
That the order was signed
'By the Court
William G. Callow
is of no moment. In State v. Friedl 7 the state appealed from an order of Judge SACHTJEN, Circuit Judge, which dismissed criminal complaints filed against the defendants. The order made at the preliminary examination was in form an order of the court having been entered 'By the Court, Herman W. Sachtjen, Judge.' This court held the order was that of a magistrate and was therefore nonappealable. With respect to the form of the order it was said the nature of the proceedings, not the form of the order determined whether the judge acted as a magistrate or a court.
In State ex rel. Arthur v. Proctor 8 this court held it lacked jurisdiction under sec. 251.08, Stats., to review an order of the judge of the superior court of Dane county, who while presiding as a magistrate, granted a motion for a change of venue and dismissed the complaint. It was therein stated:
'* * * a final order or judgment must be of a court of record because sec. 251.08, Stats., gives the supreme court appellate jurisdiction over circuit courts, county courts, or other courts of record.' 9
Judge CALLOW'S order denying defendant's motion for transfer to juvenile court is a nonappealable order. Since it is an order of a magistrate and not an order of a court of record this court lacks jurisdiction under sec. 251.08, Stats., to review the same. The appeal therefore must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rabe
...Van Dyken, 90 Wis.2d 236, 241, 279 N.W.2d 459 (1979); State v. Beals, 52 Wis.2d 599, 605, 191 N.W.2d 221 (1971); State v. Koopman, 34 Wis.2d 204, 206, 148 N.W.2d 671 (1967); In re Fish, 246 Wis. 474, 476, 17 N.W.2d 558 (1945). Moreover, neither the prosecution nor the defense is expressly a......
-
State v. Miller
...access to the prosecutor's files. Upon the entire record we find no prejudicial error. Judgment affirmed. 1 See State v. Koopman (1967), 34 Wis.2d 204, 148 N.W.2d 671.2 The defendants were charged with rape wherein consent would be a defense. Our case differs in that in the charge of sexual......
-
Bluml v. Dee Jay's Inc.
... ... Id ... Several points about these out-of-state authorities can be noted. In some instances, the courts applied a "special" or "greatly increased" risk standard that doesn't appear to match Iowa ... ...
-
State ex rel. Perry v. Wolke
... ... Proctor (1946), 249 Wis. 377, 24 N.W.2d 698; State v. Friedl (1951), 259 Wis. 110, 47 N.W.2d 306; [71 Wis.2d 106] State ex rel. White v. District Court of Milwaukee County (1952), 262 Wis. 139, 54 N.W.2d 189; State ex rel. Jackson v. Coffey (1963), 18 Wis.2d 529, 118 N.W.2d 939; State v. Koopman (1967), 34 Wis.2d 204, 148 ... N.W.2d 671; State v. Dickson (1972), 53 Wis.2d 532, 193 N.W.2d 17; State ex rel. Newspapers, Inc. v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County (1974), 65 Wis.2d 66, 221 N.W.2d 894 ... The general distinction between a judge and a court is well stated in ... ...