State v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 26 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-0714,92-0714 |
| Citation | 490 N.W.2d 48,170 Wis.2d 720 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David J. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. d |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the pro se briefs of David J. Wilson.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of James E. Doyle, Atty. Gen., and Jerome S. Schmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen.
Before BROWN, ANDERSON and SNYDER, JJ.
David J. Wilson appeals pro se from an order denying his motion for production of transcripts and records. He claims that under sec. 973.08(3), Stats., he is entitled to the material upon his request. We disagree. He is entitled to the material upon order of a court. Since the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion, we affirm.
Wilson is serving a twenty-year sentence for second-degree murder. His motion for postconviction relief seeking a new trial or sentence reduction was denied by the trial court. This court reversed the judgment of conviction based on one issue. State v. Wilson, 145 Wis.2d 143, 426 N.W.2d 56 (Ct.App.1988). The state supreme court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for reinstatement of his conviction. State v. Wilson, 149 Wis.2d 878, 440 N.W.2d 534 (1989). Wilson then challenged his state conviction by filing a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The district court dismissed the petition; Wilson's appeal is pending in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
On February 6, 1992, Wilson moved for production of transcripts and records relating to the John Doe investigation which preceded his criminal prosecution. 1 He gave no reason for requesting the documents. The trial court denied his motion because it set forth "no arguably meritorious claim." Wilson appeals.
This issue requires us to construe sec. 973.08, Stats. 2 Construction of a statute is a question of law. State v. Szarkowitz, 157 Wis.2d 740, 748, 460 N.W.2d 819, 822 (Ct.App.1990). Where the wording of a statute is plain and unambiguous, the plain meaning must be given to it. Id. We conclude the statute is unambiguous.
When a defendant is delivered to a state prison, a copy of the judgment of conviction and of any restitution order must accompany the prisoner and the sentencing transcript must follow within 120 days of sentencing. Section 973.08(1) and (2), Stats. In addition, "[t]he transcript of all other testimony and proceedings upon order of a court shall be delivered to a prisoner within 120 days of his or her request." Section 973.08(3). Wilson argues that subsec. (3) clearly imposes upon the circuit court a duty to release records "upon the request of a prisoner" but that it imposes no duty on a requester to set out an "arguably meritorious claim."
We disagree. As to the first part of Wilson's argument, the statute does not state that the court "shall order" delivery of the documents upon a prisoner's request. Rather, it requires that the documents "upon order of a court shall be delivered." Id. (emphasis added.) We see a significant difference. The statute plainly contemplates an exercise of discretion.
As to the second part, we recognize that the statute does not expressly require that a request be supported with reasons. We do not construe this statutory silence as ambiguity, however. Rather, a logical extension of our conclusion that a court exercise its discretion is that the court be supplied with reasons upon which to base its determination. We hold that at a minimum, the requesting prisoner must show that he or she either never received or was denied access to the desired documents.
One purpose of the statute is to ensure that transcripts will be provided to prisoners in a timely fashion so that they may exercise their appeal rights if they so choose. See Judicial Council Committee Note, 1969, Wis.Stat.Ann. 973.08. Wilson already has sought postconviction relief, taken an appeal, and currently is pursuing a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Although Wilson now is proceeding pro se, we can only presume that either he or his past counsel already was provided with any necessary records. Wilson does not claim, nor has he shown, that the documents never were provided to him or his counsel. Likewise, he does not claim that he was denied access to them.
In addition, some of what Wilson seeks are transcripts from his John Doe hearing. Statutorily, a defendant has a right to inspect and copy John Doe records before trial only. See secs. 968.26 and 971.23, Stats.
Since Wilson is not entitled to the records and has demonstrated no need for them, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion.
Order affirmed.
d Petition for Review denied.
1 Specifically, Wilson requested the following material:
1. Entry dated, 9/16/85, Exhibits, (Exhibits transferred from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Richard Knutson, Inc.
...of a statute is a question of law, we proceed with this undertaking independently of the trial court. See State v. Wilson, 170 Wis.2d 720, 722, 490 N.W.2d 48, 50 (Ct.App.1992). Our task is to interpret the meaning of the terms "whoever" and "another human being" within the context of the ho......
- State v. Weber
-
State v. Fuentes
... ... State v. Flynn, 190 Wis.2d 31, 49, 527 N.W.2d 343, 350 (Ct.App.1994). Only the defendant may waive this right, and the defendant's waiver must be knowing and voluntary. Id ... Fuentes cites State v. Wilson, 179 Wis.2d 660, 508 N.W.2d 44 (Ct.App.1993), in support of his argument that the court must obtain an on-the-record waiver at trial of the defendant's right to testify. In Wilson, we concluded that "the record [must] support a knowing and voluntary waiver of the defendant's right to testify." ... ...
-
Dorbritz v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...a trial court's application of statutes to facts that are not contested is also reviewed de novo. See State v. Wilson, 170 Wis. 2d 720, 722, 490 N.W.2d 48, 50 (Ct. App. 1992), denial of habeas corpus aff'd, Wilson v. McCaughtry, 994 F.2d 1228 (7th Cir. 1993). We have recently recognized: Ap......