COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 22, 2008 David R. Schanker 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 No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT III |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shawn D. Bowman,
Defendant-Respondent. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
¶1 BRIDGE, J.[1] The State appeals from the circuit court’s order vacating Shawn D. Bowman’s judgment of conviction for operating while intoxicated in violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a) (second offense) and dismissing the charge against him. The State argues that the circuit court lacked authority to sua sponte do so. We agree, reverse the order, and remand the cause with directions to reinstate the conviction.
BACKGROUND
¶2 On January 21, 2002, Bowman was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. A blood draw revealed that Bowman’s blood ethanol concentration to be .204 g/100 mL, more than twice the legal limit of .10 g/100 mL at the time. On March 25, 2002, Bowman plead guilty to operating while intoxicated in violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a) (second offense). The circuit court sentenced Bowman to serve twenty days in jail, revoked his license privileges for sixteen months, imposed a fine, and ordered an alcohol assessment. Bowman did not seek postconviction relief. He served his sentence and the case was closed.
¶3 Over five years later, on May 25, 2007, Bowman sent a letter
to the circuit court seeking to expunge his conviction or have the charge
“changed into another offense so that I may return to work so I may support my
wife and children.” Bowman stated that
he was a Merchant Marine and worked on a cargo ship in the
¶4 The circuit court sent a letter to the district attorney suggesting that the district attorney reopen the case, find that Bowman refused the field sobriety test, and vacate the conviction. The district attorney declined to reopen the case. On June 19, 2007 the circuit court entered an order vacating Bowman’s conviction and dismissing the charge. The order states that “[t]he Court finds that it is in the interest of justice, based on information received from the defendant, to vacate and dismiss the charge.” The State appeals.[2]
DISCUSSION
¶5 An examination of the judicial authority of a circuit court
presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Breier v. E.C., 130
¶6 We consider three possible sources which might provide a basis for the circuit court’s authority to vacate and dismiss an operating while intoxicated conviction: (1) statutory authority, (2) inherent judicial authority, and (3) equitable judicial authority. See id. at 381.
¶7 The circuit court did not cite to statutory authority in its order, and we are unaware of any statute authorizing a court to sua sponte vacate and dismiss an OWI conviction. The State points out that under Wis. Stat. § 973.015(1), a circuit court may expunge certain misdemeanor convictions; however, the statute applies only “[w]hen a person is under the age of 21 at the time of the commission of an offense….” Bowman was 27 at the time of the offense.
¶8 The State also contends that the statutory framework for dismissing an OWI charge contemplates that it occur by application of the district attorney to the circuit court. We agree. Wisconsin Stat. § 967.055(2)(a) provides in relevant part:
Notwithstanding s. 971.29, if the prosecutor seeks to dismiss or amend a charge under s. 346.63(1) or (5) … 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 in deterring the operation of motor vehicles by persons who are under the influence of an intoxicant ….
See also State v. Dums,
149
¶9 We next consider the circuit court’s inherent authority to do
so. The doctrine of inherent power
derives from this state’s separation of governmental power between three
branches of government. Breier,
130
¶10 The final possible source which might provide a basis for the
circuit court’s actions is equitable authority.
Equitable authority is a variant of the inherent authority
doctrine. Under its equitable authority,
a circuit court may grant equitable remedies to litigants even in the absence
of explicit statutory authority when the available legal remedy is inadequate
to do complete justice. Breier,
130
¶11 Based on the foregoing, the circuit court order is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the original conviction.
By the Court.—Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2)(c) (2005-06). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] Although
Bowman has not filed a brief with this court, he has provided a letter which
reiterates that his conviction continues to interfere with his ability to
obtain work as Merchant Marine in