District I
January
30, 2014
To:
Hon. Paul R. Van Grunsven
Circuit Court Judge
Milwaukee County Courthouse
901 N. 9th St.
Milwaukee, WI 53233
John Barrett
Clerk of Circuit Court
Room G-8
901 N. 9th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Robert Bresette
Assistant Attorney General
P. O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Karen A. Loebel
Asst. District Attorney
821 W. State St.
Milwaukee, WI 53233
David H. Schwarz
Division of Hearings &
Appeals
P.O. Box 7875
Madison, WI 53703-7875
John B. Van Hollen
Wisconsin Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Kenneth Jaworski 19727
Waupun Corr. Inst.
P.O. Box 351
Waupun, WI 53963-0351
You are hereby notified
that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Wisconsin ex
rel. Kenneth Jaworski v. David Schwarz, Administrator of Division of Hearing
and Appeals (L.C. #2012CV5024) |
|
|
|
|
Before Curley, P.J., Kessler and
Brennan, JJ.
Kenneth Jaworski, pro
se, appeals from an order of the circuit court, affirming the decision of
the Division of Hearings and Appeals issued by Administrator David H.
Schwarz. That decision upheld an
administrative law judge’s revocation of Jaworski’s parole, but modified
downward the length of the revocation.
Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at
conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 (2011-12).[1] The appeal is summarily dismissed.
In 1984, in separate cases, Jaworski was given consecutive
sentences of three and one-half years and forty-four years. In May 2009, he was released to parole
supervision but was taken directly to Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center
pursuant to a Wis. Stat. ch. 980
civil commitment. In September 2011, the
Department of Corrections sought to revoke Jaworski’s parole for his disruptive
behavior at Sand Ridge in August 2011.
Following a hearing, the administrative law judge ordered parole revoked
and forfeiture of all remaining good time—a total of twenty-one years, eight
months, and twenty-nine days. Jaworski
appealed to the Division, which affirmed the revocation but reduced the
good-time forfeiture to six years, six months, and eight days. Jaworski sought certiorari review from the
circuit court, which affirmed the Division.
Jaworski now appeals.
It is not evident, however, what Jaworski’s issues on appeal
are; his brief fails to comply with even the most basic requirements. Wisconsin
Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d) requires the brief to contain a statement of the
case, “which must include: a description
of the nature of the case; the procedural status of the case leading up to the
appeal; the disposition in the trial court; and a statement of facts relevant
to the issues presented for review, with appropriate references to the
record.” Jaworski’s brief fails to
describe in any meaningful way the nature of this case or the procedural facts
preceding the appeal. It further lacks
relevant or useful citations to the record.[2]
Wisconsin Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(e) requires the brief to
have an argument section. Arguments must
“contain the contention of the appellant, the reasons therefor, with citations
to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on[.]” Id.
While Jaworski sets out three “main arguments,” those “arguments” are
merely conclusory statements: there is
no development of any legal theory in support of the arguments, nor are there
any citations to legal authority in support of even the conclusory contentions.
This court cannot serve as both advocate and judge. See
State
v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 647, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App.
1992). Accordingly, we do not search the
record for facts to support a party’s arguments. See
Grothe
v. Valley Coatings, Inc., 2000 WI App 240, ¶6, 239 Wis. 2d 406,
620 N.W.2d 463. We do not consider
arguments unsupported by legal authority.
See State v. Shaffer, 96
Wis. 2d 531, 545-46, 292 N.W.2d 370 (Ct. App. 1980). Nor do we abandon our neutrality to develop a
party’s arguments for him. See
State v. Gulrud, 140 Wis. 2d 721, 730, 412 N.W.2d 139 (Ct. App.
1987). We therefore must decline to
address the substance of Jaworski’s brief and, consequently, we dismiss the
appeal. See Wis. Stat. Rule
809.83(2); Mogged v. Mogged, 2000 WI App 39, ¶17, 233 Wis. 2d 90, 607
N.W.2d 662; Grothe, 239 Wis. 2d 406, ¶6.
IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is summarily dismissed.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals
[1] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] For example, “Page 4, of Judge Van Grunsven” is not a legitimate record citation, particularly when we also consider that Jaworski has failed to include an appendix, as required by Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(2)(a).