 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
County of Milwaukee v. Baumgartner5/7/2002
. Milwaukee County (County) appeals from the trial court's dismissal of the municipal ordinance violation charging Baumgartner with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a) (1999-2000). In another case charging Baumgartner, the County also appeals from the trial court's sua sponte amendment of the charge of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(b), to that of reckless driving - endangering safety, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.62(2). Because the trial court lacked both the inherent and statutory power to dismiss a charge on its own motion or to amend the pleadings sua sponte, this court reverses and remands and directs the trial court to reinstate the original charges against Baumgartner.
I. Background.
. On April 25, 2001, the County charged Baumgartner with both operating a motor vehicle under the influence and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration. On April 27, 2001, Baumgartner entered pleas of not guilty to both charges. A jury trial was scheduled for September 17, 2001.
. On September 17, 2001, before the jury was called or any evidence was presented, the trial court met with the parties and decided to dismiss one charge and amend the other charge sua sponte over the prosecutor's strenuous objection. Even though there was evidence of an alcohol concentration of .10%, the trial court concluded: " his could conceivably be a reckless driving situation rather than operating while intoxicated." The trial court then decided to "sua sponte amend the charge to a violation of 346.62(2), reckless driving."
II. Analysis.
. The County maintains that the authority to file, dismiss, or amend charges lies solely in the discretion of the prosecutor. Thus, the County contends that the trial court erroneously amended the two charges to a single charge of reckless driving. This court concludes that although a trial court may amend or dismiss charges sua sponte under certain conditions, those conditions were not met in the instant case. Accordingly, the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
A. The trial court lacked the inherent power to amend or dismiss the charges sua sponte.
. Among the sources from which courts receive their powers are the statutes and their own inherent judicial authority. W.W.W. v. M.C.S., 185 Wis. 2d 468, 483, 518 N.W.2d 285 (Ct. App. 1994). Whether a trial court acted within these powers is a question of law which we review de novo. See id.
. Generally, courts have exercised inherent authority in three areas. The first area of inherent authority is the internal operations of the court. Sun Prairie v. Davis, 226 Wis. 2d 738, 749, 595 N.W.2d 635 (1999). The power to control the internal operations of the court includes, for example: (1) the authority of a court to retain its judicial assistant; (2) the authority of a court to retain its janitor; and (3) a court's inherent authority over the adequacy of its facilities to carry on its business. See id.
. Second, " courts also have inherent authority to regulate members of the bench and bar." Id. For example, the supreme court can require disclosure of a judge's assets. Id. A court also has inherent authority to determine whether attorney's fees are reasonable and to refuse to enforce those that are not. Id.
. "The final area in which the court exercises inherent authority is ensuring that the court functions efficiently and effectively to provide the fair administration of justice." Id. at 749-50. This power ensures a court the authority to control its
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|