2005 WI 30

 

 

 

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.:

03-0442-CR

Complete Title:

 

 

State of Wisconsin,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

     v.

Charles Chvala,

          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.

 

 

 

 

REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

2004 WI App 53

Reported at:  271 Wis. 2d 115, 678 N.W.2d 880

(Ct. App. 2004-Published)

 

 

Opinion Filed:

March 23, 2005 

Submitted on Briefs:

      

Oral Argument:

January 6, 2005

 

 

Source of Appeal:

 

 

Court:

Circuit 

 

County:

Dane 

 

Judge:

Daniel R. Moeser 

 

 

 

Justices:

 

 

Concurred:

      

 

Dissented:

      

 

Not Participating:

WILCOX, PROSSER, and BUTLER, J.J., did not participate. 

 

 

 

Attorneys:

 

For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by James A. Olson, Dixon R. Gahnz, John C. Carlson, Jr. and Lawton & Cates, S.C., Madison, and oral argument by James A. Olson.

 

For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Barbara L. Oswald, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general.

 

 

2005 WI 30

notice

This opinion is subject to further editing and modification.  The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. 

No.  03-0442-CR

(L.C. No.

02 CF 2451)

STATE OF WISCONSIN                   :

IN SUPREME COURT

 

 

State of Wisconsin,

 

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

 

     v.

 

Charles Chvala,

 

          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.

 

FILED

 

MAR 23, 2005

 

Cornelia G. Clark

Clerk of Supreme Court

 

 

 

 

 

REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed. 

 

1     PER CURIAM.   The court is unanimous in determining that the charges against the petitioner do not violate the doctrine of separation of powers, nor do such charges involve a violation of the Speech and Debate Clause of the Wisconsin Constitution (Art. IV, § 16).  Further, the court is unanimous in determining that Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) (2001-02), the statute that the petitioner has been charged with violating, does not here circumscribe legitimate legislative activity and, therefore, is not overbroad.  The court is also unanimous in determining that the issues presented are justiciable, in that the political question doctrine does not interfere with the court deciding these matters.   

2     The court is also unanimous in holding that the petitioner has standing to raise the issues related to Due Process, Fair Notice, and the vagueness of Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) as applied, but the court is equally divided as to whether the petitioner has met the burden of establishing that the charges here violate those principles.  Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley would affirm the court of appeals on those issues, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks and Justice Patience D. Roggensack would reverse on those issues.

3     Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. 

4     Justices JON P. WILCOX, DAVID T. PROSSER, JR., and LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR. did not participate.