State v. Wickstrom

396 N.W.2d 188, 134 Wis. 2d 158, 1986 Wisc. LEXIS 2076
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 25, 1986
Docket85-1694-CR
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 396 N.W.2d 188 (State v. Wickstrom) 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. Wickstrom, 396 N.W.2d 188, 134 Wis. 2d 158, 1986 Wisc. LEXIS 2076 (Wis. 1986).

Opinion

STEINMETZ, J.

The issue in this case is whether a bail forfeiture judgment entered pursuant to sec. *159 969.13(4), Stats., 1 is subject to the appeal provisions of sec. 808.04 2 or sec. (Rule) 809.30(1)(f). 3

*160 The court of appeals held that such appeals were subject to the provisions of sec. 808.04, Stats., and dismissed the defendant’s appeal as untimely.

On March 19,1985, the Honorable Earl Schmidt of the Shawano county circuit court signed an order and judgment forfeiting $7,118.58 of James P. Wickstrom’s $10,000 bail bond. The order was entered on March 26, 1985. The proceedings on the bail forfeiture were conducted as a part of the underlying criminal case, and the order was entered and filed as a part of that case.

The transcript was served on defendant’s counsel on July 12, 1985. A notice of appeal was filed on September 9, 1985, within 60 days of the service of the transcript.

The court of appeals entered an order sua sponte raising the issue of the court’s jurisdiction over the appeal. Subsequently, the court of appeals issued an opinion and order dated November 4, 1985, dismissing the appeal. While finding that an order forfeiting bail is a final order appealable as of right, the court held that: “The proceeding is a special action and not a part of the underlying criminal prosecution” and that therefore the time period for civil appeals set forth in sec. 808.04(1), Stats., and not the time period for appeals under sec. (Rule) 809.30 applies.

*161 The issue is squarely framed on the record in this case. The notice of appeal was not filed within 120 days of entry of the bail forfeiture order from which the appeal was taken, and so was not timely if the civil appeal provisions, and specifically, sec. 808.04(5), Stats., apply. In addition, the notice of appeal was filed within 60 days of service of the transcript, so the appeal was timely under sec. (Rule) 809.30(l)(f) if the criminal appeal provisions apply. 4 If sec. 808.04 applies, then subsec. (5) controls since the defendant was incarcerated between March 23, 1984, and April 30, 1985, with the order and judgment forfeiting the bail being entered on March 26,1985.

The underlying criminal case involves a misdemeanor, so the defendant’s analysis begins with sec. (Rule) 809.40(1), Stats., which provides:

“An appeal to the court of appeals from a judgment or order in a misdemeanor case or a ch. 48, 51 or 55 case, or a motion for postconviction relief in a misdemeanor case must be initiated within the time periods specified in s. 809.30 and are governed by the procedures specified in ss. 809.30 to 809.32.”

The issue then is whether the judgment and order forfeiting a portion of the bail entered in this case is a “judgment or order in a misdemeanor case.”

In State v. Brady, 62 Wis. 129, 22 N.W. 154 (1885), the court recognized the inherently civil nature of bail forfeiture when the court held that sureties had standing to appeal from that portion of defendant Brady’s judgment of conviction which obligated the sureties to apply the sum specified in the recognizance toward pay *162 ment of fíne and costs in a misdemeanor criminal case. In holding that the sureties had standing to appeal the judgment, the court stated that “in form” there appeared to be only one judgment when a defendant is convicted and bail is forfeited. However, the court went on to state:

“But in substance and legal effect there are two judgments: one against the accused, imposing a penalty for a crime, upon which he may be imprisoned; the other against his sureties, sounding in contract, and upon which no execution can go against the bodies of the debtors.” Id. at 130.

This is consistent with sec. 939.12, Stats., which states: “A crime is conduct which is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Conduct punishable only by a forfeiture is not a crime.”

Wisconsin’s bail forfeiture statute, sec. 969.13, Stats., is patterned in part upon Fed. R. Crim. P. 46. For this reason, federal precedents are persuasive. State v. Ascencio, 92 Wis. 2d 822, 830-31, 285 N.W. 2d 910 (Ct. App. 1979).

Federal courts that have held that appeals of bail forfeiture judgments are to be governed by time limits for civil cases are: United States v. Brouillet, 736 F.2d 1414 (10th Cir. 1984) United States v. Roher, 706 F.2d 725 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Jackson, 691 F.2d 478 (11th Cir. 1982); United States v. Plechner, 577 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1978).

Several state courts have also ruled on the nature of an appeal from bail forfeiture judgments and have supported treating such actions as civil cases. State v. Esdale, 35 Ala. App. 27, 45 So. 2d 861, 864 (1949), (a proceeding from a judgment absolute on forfeited appearance bond was a “civil action” separate from the *163 original case in which the bond was taken and appeal would lie from such judgment as in any other cause of a civil nature); People v. Wilcox, 53 Cal. 2d 651, 349 P. 2d 522, 524 (1960), (“The forfeiture of bail is an independent, collateral matter, civil in nature...”); People v. Rubright, 241 Ill. 600, 89 N.E. 713 (1909), (“A scire facias on a forfeited recognizance [given in a criminal prosecution] is a civil suit for recovery of money due upon contract.”); Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 60 N.W.2d 40, 46 (1953), (“A proceeding for the forfeiture of bail, or for a mitigation of forfeited bail, although it originates with a criminal action, is civil in its nature and does not involve the guilt or innocence, or the conviction or acquittal of any person.”); Hargrove v. State, 396 P. 2d 675, 676 (Okla. Crim. App. 1964), (appearance bond forfeiture proceeding is a civil case, not a criminal case).

Chapter 255, Laws of 1969, now sec. 969.13(1), Stats., 5

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

Related

Ryder v. Society Insurance
565 N.W.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
396 N.W.2d 188, 134 Wis. 2d 158, 1986 Wisc. LEXIS 2076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wickstrom-wis-1986.