COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 23, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT I |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
City of Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
¶1 CURLEY, P.J.[1] Lawrence
C. Stearns appeals pro se the trial
court’s order dismissing his appeal. The
¶2 In City of Pewaukee v. Carter, 2004 WI
136, ¶¶54-55, 276
I. Background.
¶3 According to the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties, on November 29, 2005, a
¶4 On April 24, 2007, the trial court refused to hear the appeal and dismissed the case after noting that this case was an appeal from a municipal default judgment. The trial court noted that such appeals are not authorized under Wis. Stat. § 800.14. Later, the court issued a written order confirming the dismissal and denying Stearns’ request for a transcript at public expense. On April 26, 2007, Stearns filed an appeal with this court.
II. Analysis.
¶5 Initially this court is called upon to determine whether the trial court properly dismissed Stearns’ appeal of the default judgment entered against him by the municipal court. This court is satisfied that the trial court correctly determined that Stearns was not permitted to appeal from the municipal court’s judgment because the case was resolved by way of a default judgment and no trial took place.
¶6 The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law,
which we review de novo. State v. Williams, 198
¶7
¶8 In defining what constitutes a “trial” that triggers the
right to appeal a decision, the court went on to explain that: “Other documents included in the drafting
record further reveal the objective of the revamped Wis. Stat. § 800.14(4).
A handwritten note reads, ‘Make sure it’s not possible to default in
[municipal court and] then file for a jury trial.’ The note continued, ‘Must try issues in [municipal court].’”
City of Pewaukee, 276
¶9 In light of this language, this court concludes that it is not possible for Stearns to appeal the municipal court’s entry of a default judgment because no trial was held and he has not exhausted his options in the municipal court. Consequently, this court will not address the merits of Stearns’ arguments and the dismissal order is affirmed.[4]
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2) (2005-06).
[2] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.
[3] Besides his initial arguments, in his reply brief Stearns appears to acknowledge the City’s argument that case law prohibits his appeal, but he claims that the trial court has the discretion to hear the appeal. He also appears to claim that he did not commence this appeal; rather, that the city attorney did so and misled the trial court. Case law does not support the former argument, and the record belies the latter.
[4] It is curious that Stearns, who claimed to be too ill to attend the trial, was able to appear in the clerk’s office and at the trial court hearing. Hopefully these facts signify an improvement in his health.