Village of Williams Bay v. Metzl
| Decision Date | 24 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1464,84-1464 |
| Parties | VILLAGE OF WILLIAMS BAY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph A. METZL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Duncan C. Delhey, of Law Offices of Richard W. Torhorst, Lake Geneva, for defendant-appellant.
John H. Andrews, of Consigny, Andrews, Hemming & Grant, S.C., Janesville, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before SCOTT, C.J., BROWN, P.J., and NETTESHEIM, J.
Joseph A. Metzl (Metzl) appeals from an order of the circuit court affirming a judgment of the municipal court of the Village of Williams Bay (the village). The issue on appeal is the appropriate standard of review to be employed by a circuit court in reviewing an appeal from a municipal court decision under sec. 800.14(5), Stats. We conclude that the proper standard of review is similar to that which applies to appellate review of a trial to the court under sec. 805.17(2), Stats. Because the record reveals that the circuit court properly sustained the decision of the municipal court, we affirm.
On March 26, 1983, Metzl was arrested and issued three citations for violations of certain ordinances of the Village of Williams Bay. On June 28, 1983, a trial was held before the Village of Williams Bay municipal court wherein Metzl was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, contrary to a village ordinance adopting by reference sec. 346.63(1)(a), Stats., and possession of open intoxicants in a motor vehicle. 1 The other charge was dismissed. On July 1, 1983, the municipal court advised Metzl that either party had twenty days from that date to appeal the decision. On July 19, 1983, Metzl filed a notice of appeal with the circuit court. 2
On March 23, 1984, a hearing was held in the circuit court. Metzl requested that the municipal court decision be reversed on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. The circuit court reviewed the record to determine whether there was any credible evidence upon which to sustain the municipal court decision and concluded that there was credible evidence to support the conviction. Metzl argued that the circuit court was in error and that the proper standard of review was for the circuit court to review the record de novo and make an independent determination based upon the municipal court transcript without deference to the municipal court decision. The parties filed briefs on this issue and on May 15, 1984, the circuit court issued a memorandum decision stating:
The Court feels that it is proper on appeal for the Court to review the transcript to see if there is credible evidence to sustain the municipal judge's decision. However, the defendant argues that this Court must make an independent decision based upon the evidence presented at the trial. For the purposes of the decision in this case only the Court adopted that standard proposed by the defendant and his attorney.
After a further review using this standard, the circuit court affirmed the decision of the municipal court. Metzl appeals.
Upon this court's own motion, this appeal was ordered to be decided by a three-judge panel.
Under ch. 800, Stats., there are two methods by which a defendant charged with an ordinance violation may obtain a determination of the facts by a circuit court: (1) request a jury trial prior to the commencement of the municipal court proceedings pursuant to sec. 800.04(1)(d), Stats., 3 or (2) try the case in municipal court and then appeal and request a trial de novo to the circuit court pursuant to sec. 800.14(4), Stats. 4 A request for a trial de novo under sec. 800.14(4) permits the parties to try the matter anew as though it had not been heard before.
In this case, neither party made a timely request for a trial de novo pursuant to sec. 800.14(4), Stats., and the circuit court did not on its own motion order a trial de novo without a jury. Therefore, this case is governed by sec. 800.14(5), Stats., which provides:
If there is no request or motion under sub. (4), an appeal shall be based upon a review of a transcript of the proceedings. The municipal judge shall direct that the transcript be prepared from the electronic recording under s. 800.13(1) and shall certify the transcript. The costs of the transcript shall be paid for under s. 814.65(5). The electronic recording and the transcript shall be transferred to the circuit court for review.
Metzl contends that the circuit court, in reviewing a municipal court decision, retains the power to make an independent evaluation of the evidence based upon the record. He contends that an appeal "based upon a review of a transcript of the proceedings" under sec. 800.14(5), Stats., permits the circuit court to review the record de novo and to substitute its judgment for that of the municipal court. 5 We disagree.
The interpretation of a statute is a question of law. In re I.V., 109 Wis.2d 407, 409, 326 N.W.2d 127, 128 (Ct.App.1982). Appellate courts owe no deference to the trial court's resolution of issues of law. Behnke v. Behnke, 103 Wis.2d 449, 452, 309 N.W.2d 21, 22 (Ct.App.1981). In construing or interpreting a statute, a reviewing court must give effect to the ordinary and accepted meaning of the statutory language. County of Walworth v. Spalding, 111 Wis.2d 19, 24, 329 N.W.2d 925, 927 (1983). In determining the meaning of a particular word in a statute, it is necessary to examine the word in light of the entire statute. Davis v. Rahkonen, 112 Wis.2d 385, 388, 332 N.W.2d 855, 857 (Ct.App.1983).
The term "appeal" is frequently used generically to cover any form of appellate review. The right to a trial de novo is generally limited to special situations. Cf. Gerbitz v. Joint County School Committee, 274 Wis. 396, 399-400, 80 N.W.2d 377, 379 (1957); Kuehnel v. Wisconsin Registration Board of Architects and Professional Engineers, 243 Wis. 188, 193, 9 N.W.2d 630, 633 (1943); School District No. 3 v. Callahan, 237 Wis. 560, 578-79, 297 N.W. 407, 416 (1941). Otherwise, the review is confined to consideration of the record below with no new testimony taken or issues raised in the appellate court. The tendency is to limit appellate courts in their consideration of questions of fact. See 4 Am.Jur.2d Appeal & Error § 2 (1962).
We conclude that "an appeal ... based upon a review of a transcript of the proceedings" under sec. 800.14(5), Stats., does not permit the circuit court to review the record de novo and to substitute its judgment for that of the municipal court. Subsection (4) of sec. 800.14, Stats., specifically provides either party with the option for a trial de novo without a jury to the circuit court. If there is no such request or motion and if the circuit court does not order a trial de novo on its own motion, then subsec. (5) provides for a review of the transcript. Construing sec. 800.14 as a whole, we conclude that subsec. (5) limits the circuit court to an examination of the transcript to determine whether the evidence supports the municipal court decision. Cf. United Shoe Workers of America, Local 132 v. Wisconsin Labor Relations Board, 227 Wis. 569, 574, 279 N.W. 37, 39-40 (1938). Review under subsec. (5) is analogous to appellate review of a trial to the court under sec. 805.17(2), Stats. 6 As a result, findings of fact of the municipal court should not be set aside by the circuit court unless clearly erroneous and due regard should be given to the opportunity of the municipal court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.
The court of appeals applies the same standard of review as the circuit court. 7 Cf. Miller Brewing Co. v. DILHR 103 Wis.2d 496, 501, 308 N.W.2d 922, 925 (Ct.App.1981). We search the record for facts to support the municipal court's findings of fact. Cf. In re Estate of Glass, 85 Wis.2d 126, 134, 270 N.W.2d 386, 391 (1978).
Metzl was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant pursuant to a traffic citation and complaint. The citation/complaint charged that on March 26, 1983 at 1:00 a.m., Metzl was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated on Geneva Street at Theatre Road in the Village of Williams Bay. Based upon the testimony of the parties and the witnesses called, the municipal court found that the village had met its burden of proof on the charge set forth in the citation. Because the municipal court did not make findings as to the ultimate facts, however, we will examine the record to determine whether the municipal court reached a result which the evidence would sustain if a specific finding supporting that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Watertown v. Busshardt
...case be remanded to the municipal court for another trial. In so arguing, he places principal reliance on Village of Williams Bay v. Metzl, 124 Wis.2d 356, 369 N.W.2d 186 (Ct.App.1985), although he does not explain the application of the case other than to suggest that it stands for the pro......
-
City of La Crosse v. Ducharme
...court to review the record de novo and to substitute its judgment for that of the municipal court.” Village of Williams Bay v. Metzl, 124 Wis.2d 356, 361, 369 N.W.2d 186 (Ct.App.1985). Review under § 800.14(5) is limited “to an examination of the transcript to determine whether the evidence......
-
State v. Kelly
...we must rely on the record before the trial court at the time of its voluntariness determination. Village of Williams Bay v. Metzl, 124 Wis. 2d 356, 360-61, 369 N.W.2d 186 (Ct. App. 1985). ¶20. In its decision to deny the first motion to suppress, the trial court acknowledged Kelly's border......
- State v. Behlke, 90-2378