District IV
November 24, 2014
To:
Hon. Stephen E. Ehlke
Circuit Court Judge
215 South Hamilton, Br.15, Rm. 7107
Madison, WI 53703
Carlo Esqueda
Clerk of Circuit Court
Room 1000
215 South Hamilton
Madison, WI 53703
David R. Gault
Dane County Corporation Counsel
#419
210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703-3345
Dept. of Justice, Civil Litigation Unit
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Jessie L. McShan 306041
John C Burke Corr. Inst.
P.O. Box 900
Waupun, WI 53963-0900
Oregon Correctional Center
P.O. Box 25
Oregon, WI 53575-0025
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012AP820 |
In re the Attorney Fees in: State of Wisconsin v. Jessie L. McShan: Jessie L. McShan v. Dane County (L.C. # 2008CF1711) |
|
|
|
|
Before Lundsten, Sherman and Kloppenburg, JJ.
Jessie McShan appeals two circuit court orders denying his requests for modification of the requirement that he make payments towards the fees of his court-appointed attorney. 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] We affirm.
McShan first argues that he was deprived of due process regarding a 2009 hearing that led to a judgment of $715 being entered against him for attorney fees. The respondent argues that this issue is moot because the judgment was later vacated. McShan’s reply brief does not dispute that the judgment was vacated. Therefore, this issue is moot because our decision would have no practical effect. See State ex rel. Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, ¶3, 233 Wis. 2d 685, 608 N.W.2d 425.
McShan’s next argument is difficult to understand precisely. It appears that he may be arguing that the circuit court should have found him unable to make payments because in January 2011 it signed the order vacating the $715 judgment. That order was part of a stipulation with the County stating that McShan is “without the means to make payments due to his incarceration.” McShan asserts that his financial situation has not changed since then.
This argument fails because McShan does not provide any legal reason to conclude that the court was bound in the future by the County’s stipulation. A court can sign a stipulation in which the County agrees that McShan is unable to pay, and then later also properly conclude that, in the court’s own opinion, McShan is able to pay.
IT IS ORDERED that the orders appealed from are summarily affirmed under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals