Village of Greendale v. Stacey King, 2023AP503, 9/17/24, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
King appeals her OWI first judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, that the circuit court based its rulings on bias against her instead of on the relevant law, and that the field sobriety test should not have been presented to the jury. The COA rejects these arguments and affirms.
A Village of Greendale Police Officer pulled King over after seeing her make an illegal U-turn, deviate from her lane twice, and stop twice in the middle of a highway. When He then noticed she was slurring her words, her eyes were red and bloodshot, she was confused as to where she was and where she lived, and she smelled like alcohol. A field sobriety test (FST) and a preliminary breath test both indicated that King was intoxicated. (¶2). King pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial. Her case was transferred from municipal court to the circuit court. (¶4).
King first argues that her case should have been dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired when the circuit court failed to hold a jury trial within the requisite time period. The COA disagrees, holding that Wis. Stat. § 893.93(2)(b) “plainly requires an action to be ‘commenced within [two] years'” — not resolved within two years. (¶6). Here, King’s case was transferred to the circuit court for a jury trial within two years of the OWI citation having been issued.
Next, King that the circuit court’s rulings were based on bias against her and that the FST should not have been presented to the jury. (¶7). The court rejects these arguments, concluding they are “entirely conclusory and not supported by legal reasoning or references to the record.” (¶7). Citing the standard case law, the court holds it “will not abandon its neutrality to develop King’s conclusory statements into arguments for her.” The court also notes that it is unable to address King’s arguments because she failed to submit the relevant trial and hearing transcripts, and it is bound by the record, must assume the circuit court’s decisions were proper where the appellate record is incomplete and must hold King to procedural requirements. (¶8).
