State v. Omernik
| Decision Date | 29 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. S,S |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. Ray OMERNIK, Appellant. tate 137. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
On September 25, 1970, following a jury verdict of guilty, defendant Ray Omernik was convicted in the county court of Portage county on two counts of unlawful diversion of water, being violations of sec. 30.18(3), Stats. The trial judge imposed a fine of $250 on each count. Defendant moved for a new trial on December 3, 1970. On April 1, 1971, the county court rendered a decision in which the motion was denied. Defendant appeals.
Nikolay, Jensen & Scott, Colby, for appellant.
Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Robert B. McConnell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for respondent.
The defendant raises several questions on this appeal. However, the preliminary issue to be considered is whether the appeal is properly before this court. This issue was not raised by the parties, but jurisdiction is always a proper question to consider, even if we raise it sua sponte. 1
We note that, so far this term, six appeals have been dismissed for untimeliness, unappealability, or procedural error. They are: Sprangers v. Philippi (1971), 52 Wis.2d 403, 190 N.W.2d 136; State v. Beals (1971), 52 Wis.2d 599, 191 N.W.2d 221; Kohnke v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (1971), 52 Wis.2d 687, 191 N.W.2d 1; Malkowski v. Malkowski (1971), 52 Wis.2d 731, 190 N.W.2d 924; McCabe v. Milwaukee (1971), 53 Wis.2d 34, 191 N.W.2d 926; State v. Langston (1971), 53 Wis.2d 228, 191 N.W.2d 713. These cases clearly establish that this court has appellate jurisdiction only as allowed by statute, and only to the extent the statute allows. If a case appealed to this court does not come within the terms of a statute allowing such appeal, this court has no jurisdiction to do anything other than dismiss the appeal, even if the parties fail to raise the question. We find that there is no statutory authority permitting an appeal to this court from a decision of the county court denying a new trial in a misdemeanor case.
Sec. 974.01(1), Stats., clearly states:
'Appeals in misdemeanor cases are to the circuit court for the county on the record.'
Sub. (2) of that statute provides for an appeal to the circuit court within fifteen days after denial of a motion for a new trial. The only reference to the supreme court in sec. 974.01, Stats., is in sub. (6), which gives the circuit court 'power similar to that of the supreme court under ch. 274.' Clearly, the legislature intended to provide that appeals from judgments or orders entered by the county court in misdemeanor cases are to be taken to the circuit court, and not to this court. Since the offense charged in this case is a misdemeanor, appeal should have been to the circuit court.
Appellant contends, however, that sec. 974.03, Stats., should apply. That statute allows an appeal to this court in the manner provided in civil cases, within ninety days after denial of a motion for a new trial. Ch. 274 governs the matter of appeals in civil cases; sec. 274.09(1), Stats., provides in part:
'Appeals to the supreme court may be taken from . . . the county courts except where express provision is made for an appeal to the circuit court . . .' (Emphasis supplied.)
We think that sec. 974.01, Stats., is an 'express provision,' making an appeal to this court, under sec. 974.03, Stats., improper.
Appellant further argues, however, that the legislature provided for two alternative methods of appealing from an order of the county court: The first, by appealing to the circuit court under sec. 974.01, Stats., when the motion for a new trial is made within fifteen days of entry of judgment; and the other, where the motion is made within ninety days, as provided in sec. 974.03, in which case appeal to this court would be proper. We find no merit or logic to this contention. As stated in Milwaukee County v. Caldwell (1966), 31 Wis.2d 286, 292, 143 N.W.2d 41, 44:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Starks
...our jurisdiction, we may—indeed, must—ensure that we have the power to speak on a dispute before doing so. State v. Omernik, 54 Wis.2d 220, 222, 194 N.W.2d 617 (1972) (“[J]urisdiction is always a proper question to consider, even if we raise it sua sponte.”) (footnote omitted). ¶ 34 In thei......
-
City of Eau Claire v. Booth
...jurisdiction. That is, whether the circuit court and this court have jurisdiction to hear the instant case.”) (citing State v. Omernik, 54 Wis.2d 220, 194 N.W.2d 617 (1972) ; McCabe v. Milwaukee, 53 Wis.2d 34, 191 N.W.2d 926 (1971) ; Brachtl v. DOR, 48 Wis.2d 184, 179 N.W.2d 921 (1970) ; Bu......
-
State v. Mendoza
...issue of whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. Taylor v. State, 59 Wis.2d 134, 137, 207 N.W.2d 651 (1973); State v. Omernik, 54 Wis.2d 220, 222, 194 N.W.2d 617 (1972). The state has appealed from an order of the circuit court, dated April 10, 1978, suppressing statements made by the d......
-
Shopper Advertiser, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue
......Miller, 269 Wis. 223, [112 Wis.2d 360] 234, 69 N.W.2d 265, 270 (1955), overruled on other grounds, Gelhaar v. State, 41 Wis.2d 230, 163 N.W.2d 609 (1969), construing the predecessor of this subsection in another context:. Page 844. We do not ... State v. Omernik, 54 Wis.2d 220, 222, 194 N.W.2d 617, 617 (1972). Judgment of the Dane County court reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to ......