State v. Townsend

Wisconsin Supreme Court

State v. Townsend

2007 WI 31, 728 N.W.2d 342, 299 Wis. 2d 672, 2007 Wisc. LEXIS 29

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 2007

Docket2003AP429-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2007 WI 31 (State v. Townsend) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Townsend, 2007 WI 31, 728 N.W.2d 342, 299 Wis. 2d 672, 2007 Wisc. LEXIS 29 (Wis. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. Jeffrey Townsend petitioned this court for review of a court of appeals decision State v. Townsend, 2006 WI App 177, 295 Wis. 2d 844, 722 N.W.2d 753, which affirmed a circuit court order denying his motion seeking to dismiss his judgment of conviction on the ground that the State of Illinois violated the statutory procedures of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). By order dated October 10, 2006, this court granted the petition for review to consider the appropriate remedy for the State of Illinois' violation of the IAD. Oral argument in this case was conducted on February 14, 2007.

¶ 2. At the oral argument, counsel for the parties informed the court that they believed the petitioner had absconded from his supervision on parole on the conviction and sentence under review. The court directed the parties to confirm Townsend's status and to advise the court of the effect of that status on his pending appeal. The parties confirmed that Townsend has absconded from his parole supervision. Counsel for the petitioner urged the court to retain the matter.

¶ 3. It is within the discretion of the court to refuse to decide a criminal appeal if the defendant *674 cannot be made to respond to the court's judgment. See Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (1876). Having considered the matter, the court will dismiss the petition for review as improvidently granted.

By the Court. — The review of the decision of the Court of Appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. Jeffrey Townsend petitioned this court for review of a court of appeals decision State v. Townsend, 2006 WI App 177, 295 Wis. 2d 844, 722 N.W.2d 753, which affirmed a circuit court order denying his motion seeking to dismiss his judgment of conviction on the ground that the State of Illinois violated the statutory procedures of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). By order dated October 10, 2006, this court granted the petition for review to consider the appropriate remedy for the State of Illinois' violation of the IAD. Oral argument in this case was conducted on February 14, 2007.

¶ 2. At the oral argument, counsel for the parties informed the court that they believed the petitioner had absconded from his supervision on parole on the conviction and sentence under review. The court directed the parties to confirm Townsend's status and to advise the court of the effect of that status on his pending appeal. The parties confirmed that Townsend has absconded from his parole supervision. Counsel for the petitioner urged the court to retain the matter.

¶ 3. It is within the discretion of the court to refuse to decide a criminal appeal if the defendant *674 cannot be made to respond to the court's judgment. See Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (1876). Having considered the matter, the court will dismiss the petition for review as improvidently granted.

By the Court. — The review of the decision of the Court of Appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2007 WI 31, 728 N.W.2d 342, 299 Wis. 2d 672, 2007 Wisc. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-townsend-wis-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack