COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED JUNE 20, 1995 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 94-3122
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
CITY OF APPLETON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RICHARD J. WOOD,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Outagamie County:
JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Affirmed.
LaROCQUE, J. Richard Wood appeals a judgment imposing a
money judgment in the amount of $83.50 for allowing his dog to run at large in
violation of an Appleton city ordinance.
Wood challenges the circuit court's jurisdiction over his person and the
court's authority to enter an alternative jail sentence in lieu of payment of
the forfeiture. This court affirms.
Wood's motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction was heard and denied by the circuit court on
November 8, 1994. The transcript of
that proceeding is not part of the record.[1] When an appeal is brought upon an incomplete
record, this court will assume that every fact essential to sustain the trial
court's decision is supported by the record.
T.W.S., Inc. v. Nelson, 150 Wis.2d 251, 254-55, 440 N.W.2d
833, 835 (Ct. App. 1989). The circuit
court's finding that it had personal jurisdiction is therefore affirmed.
Wood next claims that
the court did not have authority to impose a three-day jail sentence in lieu of
payment of the forfeiture. He relies
upon § 66.115, Stats.[2] His reliance is misplaced. Wood suggests that this statute permits the
imposition of a jail sentence for failure to pay only where the ordinance
penalty was required by statute to conform to a state statute. That is not what the statute provides. Rather, it provides that where the
statute requires conformity, that conformity does not extend to the imposition
of a jail penalty for the offense.
Section 66.115 has no application with respect to an ordinance that need
not conform to penalties provided by state statute. The authority to impose imprisonment for a fixed maximum period
for failure to pay a forfeiture or a fine has long been recognized. Milwaukee
v. Johnson, 192 Wis. 585, 592, 213 N.W. 335, 338 (1927). This authority is constitutional. Milwaukee v. Horvath, 31
Wis.2d 490, 143 N.W.2d 446 (1966).
Finally, absent some
compelling reason, this court does not address arguments not raised before the
circuit court. See State v.
Yellow Freight System, 101 Wis.2d 142, 158, 303 N.W.2d 834, 842 (1981).
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.
[1] By order dated December 14, 1994, this court denied Wood's motion that this court provide him a transcript at public expense. The order directed Wood to seek relief in the trial court. As the order also pointed out, the trial court may award the appellant a free transcript if he demonstrates to the trial court (1) that his appeal has arguable merit and (2) that he is indigent for purposes of obtaining a free transcript. State ex rel. Girouard v. Jackson Circuit Court, 155 Wis.2d 148, 159, 454 N.W.2d 792, 797 (1990). The circuit court heard Wood's motion for a transcript on January 12, 1995, and denied it by written order dated January 19, 1995. Wood neither appealed nor challenged that order, and it is therefore a final order on the merits.
[2] Section 66.115, Stats., provides: "Penalties under county and municipal ordinances. Where a statute requires that the penalty under any county or municipal ordinance shall conform to the penalty provided by statute such ordinance may impose only a forfeiture and may provide for imprisonment in case the forfeiture is not paid."