State v. Love, 92-2828-FT

• Decision Date: 15 June 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-2828-FT,92-2828-FT
• Citation: 178 Wis.2d 317,504 N.W.2d 875
• Parties: NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. IN RE The Return of Property In State v. Love; STATE OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff-Cross-Respondent, v. Dorthine LOVE, Defendant-Cross Appellant.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Page 875

504 N.W.2d 875

178 Wis.2d 317

NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES.

IN RE The Return of Property In State v. Love;

STATE OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff-Cross-Respondent, v. Dorthine LOVE, Defendant-Cross Appellant.

No. 92-2828-FT.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

June 15, 1993.

FINE.

Dorthine Love appeals from the trial court's order denying Love's petition for return of property seized following the execution of a search warrant at her home. ¹ As a result of evidence found during the search, Dorthine Love was charged with possession of marijuana while armed with a dangerous weapon, to which she pled guilty.

Dorthine Love's appeal concerns $1,000 in cash claimed by Litwain Love and Annie L. Love, the return of which was sought in a petition filed by Litwain Love, and coats, the return of which was also sought by Litwain Love in his petition. The pertinent parts of the trial court's order are:

7. The petitions of Litwain Love, Jeffrey Love, and Kenneth Johnson for the return of coats taken from 6481 N. 106th Street on May 29, 1992 by the Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Group is DENIED.

8. The petition of Litwain Love and Annie L. Love for the return of $1,000.00 cash taken from 6481 N. 106th Street is DENIED.

The notice of appeal that brings this matter here is on behalf of Dorthine Love only, and Dorthine Love's brief on appeal does not assert that she has any ownership interest in either the $1,000 or the coats at issue. She is not an aggrieved party, and, accordingly, may not maintain this appeal. See Tierney v. Lacenski, 114 Wis.2d 298, 302, 338 N.W.2d 522, 524 (Ct.App.1983) ("A right to appeal from a judgment or order, irrespective of statute, is confined to parties aggrieved in some appreciable manner by the court action."); Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. v. Koenigs, 110 Wis.2d 522, 526, 329 N.W.2d 157, 159 (1983) (elimination of the words "party aggrieved" from statute authorizing appeal did not change "fundamental and well understood concept" that only parties who are aggrieved from a trial court's order or judgment may appeal therefrom). This appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction even though the State has not sought that relief. See Estate of Bryngelson, 237 Wis. 7, 11-12, 296 N.W. 63, 66 (1941).

By the Court.-Cross-appeal dismissed.

This opinion will not be published. Rule...