 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
County of Milwaukee v. Baumgartner5/7/2002
docket, including: (1) disposing of constitutional issues raised before it; (2) appointing counsel for indigent parties; (3) determining compensation for court-appointed attorneys; (4) vacating a void judgment because the court had no authority to enter the judgment in the first place; (5) ordering the dismissal of a complaint if an attorney fails to appear for a pretrial conference and the attorney was warned of the possible sanction of dismissal; and (6) ordering parties to exchange names of lay witnesses. See id. at 750.
. However, courts may not exercise inherent authority over matters that concern neither the existence of the court nor the orderly and efficient functioning of the court. See id. at 751. Specifically, this court has held: "The fashioning of a criminal disposition is not an exercise of broad, inherent court powers." State v. Amato, 126 Wis. 2d 212, 216, 376 N.W.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1985). In Amato, this court noted that "if the authority to fashion a particular criminal disposition exists, it must derive from the statutes." Id.
. This court concludes that the amendment and dismissal of the charges in the instant case were not within the trial court's inherent powers. The charges against Baumgartner were not dismissed or amended pursuant to any of the three traditional areas of inherent power. The dismissal and amendment of the charges did not concern the efficient or effective functioning of the trial court, and the trial court never raised such concerns. Thus, if the trial court's authority to amend or dismiss charges sua sponte existed, it had to derive from the statutes.
B. The trial court lacked the statutory power to amend or dismiss the charges sua sponte.
. " he amendment of pleadings in traffic cases involving violation of a state statute prescribing a forfeiture are governed by the civil statutes." State v. Peterson, 104 Wis. 2d 616, 621, 312 N.W.2d 784 (1981). Baumgartner has offered two statutory sections to justify the trial court's actions - Wis. Stat. §§ 967.055 and 802.09. This court concludes that neither is applicable.
. First, Wis. Stat. § 967.055 states, in relevant part:
Prosecution of offenses; operation of a motor vehicle or motorboat; alcohol, intoxicant or drug.
....
(2) Dismissing or amending charge. (a) f the prosecutor seeks to dismiss or amend a charge under s. 346.63 (1) or (5) or a local ordinance in conformity therewith, or s. 346.63 (2) or (6) ... the prosecutor shall apply to the court. The application shall state the reasons for the proposed amendment or dismissal. The court may approve the application only if the court finds that the proposed amendment or dismissal is consistent with the public's interest.... (Emphasis added.)
. In State v. Dums, 149 Wis. 2d 314, 440 N.W.2d 814 (Ct. App. 1989), this court determined that a trial court's supervision of prosecutorial motions to dismiss or amend pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 967.055(2) does not violate separation of powers:
Dums contends that sec. 967.055(2) violates the separation-of-powers doctrine because the statute mandates judicial interference in the exercise of executive power....
Wisconsin's separation-of-powers principle prohibits a substantial encroachment by one branch of government on a function that has been delegated to another branch. The issue in separation-of-powers cases is whether the statute in question "materially impairs or practically defeats" the proper function of a particular branch and the exercise of powers delegated to it. A statute may not allow one branch of government to unduly burden or substantially interfere with another branch's exerc
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|