 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Middaugh9/1/2004
On January 24, 2003, the State filed a criminal complaint against Middaugh alleging OWI, second offense, and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration. The complaint alleged that on December 13, 2002, Officer Charles Beckford of the City of Kiel Police Department observed Middaugh's vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed. Beckford followed Middaugh's vehicle into the parking lot of Larry's Goodtime Inn, where he observed Middaugh exit her vehicle and approach his squad. Beckford observed Middaugh stumble as she exited her vehicle, putting her left hand on the driver's side passenger door to keep her balance. While speaking with Middaugh, Beckford observed that she smelled of intoxicants and had red, glassy, bloodshot eyes. Beckford also observed Middaugh fumble for approximately thirty to forty seconds while trying to get her wallet out of her purse.
. Middaugh refused Beckford's request to perform field sobriety tests and was placed under arrest. She then asked for an attorney. Beckford advised that her request for counsel would be addressed later. Middaugh was then transported to a hospital where she was advised under the implied consent law and asked to provide a sample of her blood. She refused and was issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Operating Privilege. Middaugh was then subjected to a forced blood draw, which indicated a blood ethanol concentration of 0.202 g/100 ml.
. Middaugh requested a refusal hearing, which the circuit court conducted on September 2, 2003.*fn2 Following the testimony, the court ruled that Middaugh's refusal was improper and ordered her driving privileges revoked for a period of two years. A written order of revocation was entered that same day.
. On November 19, 2003, a jury found Middaugh guilty of OWI and PAC, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a) and (b). Middaugh was later sentenced on the OWI charge and she appeals from that judgment of conviction.
Discussion
. We begin by clarifying what is properly before us on this appeal. Middaugh raises numerous challenges to both her OWI conviction and the circuit court's determination that her refusal was improper. However, Middaugh has appealed only from the OWI conviction, not from the revocation order resulting from the refusal proceeding. We therefore do not address Middaugh's issues relating to the refusal proceeding except as they are relevant to the OWI conviction.*fn3 State v. Gibson, 2001 WI App 71, , 242 Wis. 2d 267, 626 N.W.2d 73 ("[T]he refusal to submit to a chemical test under [Wis. Stat.] § 343.305 is a civil matter and is a separate substantive offense from OWI under [Wis. Stat.] § 346.63(1)."
. With that in mind, we now address Middaugh's arguments which pertain to her OWI conviction. In so doing, we note that Middaugh's pro se brief raises a variety of issues, some obvious and others obscure. As to any of Middaugh's arguments that we do not address, we hold that such are inadequately developed or irrelevant to the judgment appealed. See State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc., 81 Wis. 2d 555, 564, 261 N.W.2d 147 (1978) ("An appellate court is not a performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played on an appeal."); State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (appellate court may "decline to review issues inadequately briefed").
Right to Counsel Prior to Forced Blood Draw
. From the very outset of her encounter with Officer Beckford, Middaugh asked for an attorney. Because this request was not immediately accommodated, Middaugh contends that she was denied her right to counsel and that the forced blood test result should have been suppressed.
. Middaugh's argument has been previ
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|