COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 9, 2010 A.
John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
APPEAL
from judgments of the circuit court for
¶1 SHERMAN, J. Roy Derksen was cited for improperly transporting a building on a highway, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.924 (2007-08),[1] operating a motor vehicle with an overall height in excess of 13 1/2 feet without a permit, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 348.06(1), and operating a vehicle having a total width in excess of 8 1/2 feet without a permit, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 348.05(1). Following a trial to the circuit court, Derksen was convicted of all three violations.
¶2 Derksen challenges the judgments of conviction on appeal. He contends the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding. He also contends his due process rights were violated at the trial. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgments of conviction.
DISCUSSION
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
¶3 Derksen challenges the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction. He claims that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking in this case because: (1) it was not proven by the State when challenged by him; (2) the record does not contain a sworn complaint; and (3) the charges against him were not “certified.”
¶4 The question of whether a court has subject matter
jurisdiction presents a question of statutory and constitutional
interpretation. In re Carlson, 147
¶5 Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon a court solely
by the constitution and state statutes. See Thompson
v. Thompson, 129
¶6 Contrary to Derksen’s assertions on appeal, there was no
obligation on the part of the state to “prove” the court’s subject matter
jurisdiction over the proceeding, which was expressly granted by the
Due Process
¶7 Derksen claims his due process rights were violated because it was not made clear to him whether the proceeding was administrative, civil, or criminal. Derksen fails to cite to this court any legal authority which would indicate that a court’s failure to make it clear to a defendant that the proceeding is administrative, civil, or criminal is a violation of the defendant’s due process rights. See id. Furthermore, the circuit court very plainly explained that the proceeding concerned civil offenses. The following discussion took place at trial:
MR. DERKSEN: Judge, what we’re looking at is more, you know, I don’t understand the cause of the nature of things because, you know, I don’t know, if it’s administrative or if it’s a judicial case. And—
THE COURT: Regardless if it’s administrative or judicial—well, I mean the trial on a citation is to the court. I mean, that’s judicial.
….
MR. DERKSEN: Is this a civil case?
THE COURT: Yeah, this is a civil case, not a crime, right?
ATTORNEY THOMPSON: Correct.
THE COURT: You’re not charged with a crime. These are traffic tickets basically.
¶8 Derksen claims his due process rights were violated because the court did not fully explain to him the nature of the charges, resulting in a lack of preparedness at trial on his part. We disagree. At trial, the court reviewed the citations with Derksen and explained the essence of each charge. Derksen also acknowledged that prior to trial, he was provided highlighted copies of the statutes he was charged with violating to help him better understand the charges against him.
¶9 Derksen claims further, without citation to legal authority, that because the State accused him and sought to punish him, the violations of Wis. Stat. §§ 346.924, 348.05(1), or 348.06(1) constituted criminal offenses, not civil offenses. He claims that because the violations constituted criminal offenses, he should have been, but was not, provided constitutional criminal protections, including certification of the charges against him and Miranda warnings. Derksen is not correct.
¶10 “[T]he Wisconsin Supreme Court has determined that the
legislature clearly intended that violations of state traffic laws involving
forfeitures be treated as civil offenses.”
State v. Naydihor, 168
By the Court.—Judgments affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.
[2]