City of Eau Claire v. Melissa M. Booth
882 N.W.2d 738
Wis.2016Background
- In 1990 Booth Britton was convicted in Minnesota of OWI; in 1992 she was prosecuted in Eau Claire under a municipal ordinance for a first‑offense OWI and received a civil forfeiture. The City Attorney did not know about the 1990 conviction.
- In 2014 Booth Britton moved to reopen and vacate the 1992 judgment, arguing the 1992 offense was factually a second‑offense OWI and thus the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a civil forfeiture.
- The Eau Claire circuit court granted relief, voiding the 1992 judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and relying on County of Walworth v. Rohner.
- The City appealed; the Supreme Court granted bypass review to decide whether a mischarged OWI (a second offense tried as a civil first offense) implicates subject matter jurisdiction or merely court competency, and whether Booth Britton forfeited any challenge.
- The Supreme Court held the circuit court retained subject matter jurisdiction but lacked competency to enter a civil forfeiture for what was in fact a second‑offense OWI; because Booth Britton failed to timely object in 1992, she forfeited the competency challenge and relief was improperly granted.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Booth Britton's Argument | City of Eau Claire's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does charging a factual second‑offense OWI as a municipal first‑offense civil forfeiture deprive the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction? | The mischarge means no offense known at law was before the court; judgment is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. | Mischarging implicates statutory noncompliance affecting court competency, not constitutional subject matter jurisdiction; challenges can be forfeited. | Circuit court retains subject matter jurisdiction; mischarging affects competency, not jurisdiction. |
| If the court lacked competency, can the defendant raise that claim after a long delay (22 years)? | A void judgment may be vacated at any time; relief under § 806.07(l)(d) is available. | Challenges to competency may be forfeited if not timely raised; defendant forfeited by not objecting in 1992. | The claim was forfeited; the late § 806.07 motion was improperly granted and should be reversed. |
| Is Rohner controlling to declare such judgments void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction? | Rohner supports treating mischarged subsequent OWIs as jurisdictional defects. | Mikrut and later cases clarified that statutory noncompliance affects competency, and Rohner's language suggesting lack of jurisdiction should be read as competency. | Rohner's policy holding (state has exclusive jurisdiction over second OWIs) remains, but its jurisdictional language is withdrawn; Mikrut's competency framework governs. |
| Does Bush (and related precedent) mean a complaint that fails to state an offense known at law always strips subject matter jurisdiction? | Yes; a complaint charging no offense known at law leaves the court without jurisdiction. | Even when an information is defective, the circuit court retains subject matter jurisdiction to determine the defect; mischarging here did not allege a non‑existent offense. | The court clarifies Bush: courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate such challenges; here both first‑ and second‑offense OWIs are offenses known at law, so jurisdiction existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Walworth v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713 (Wis. 1982) (held state has exclusive jurisdiction over second OWIs; earlier language suggested lack of subject matter jurisdiction when mischarged)
- Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut, 273 Wis. 2d 76 (Wis. 2004) (clarified distinction between constitutional subject matter jurisdiction and statutory competency; defects in statutory compliance usually affect competency and may be forfeited)
- State v. Bush, 283 Wis. 2d 90 (Wis. 2005) (discussed effect of complaints that fail to state an offense; Court here narrows certain language about jurisdictional incapacity)
- State v. Smith, 283 Wis. 2d 57 (Wis. 2005) (describing subject matter jurisdiction as power to decide types of actions)
- State v. Williams, 355 Wis. 2d 581 (Wis. 2014) (describes escalating OWI penalty scheme and legislative trend toward harsher mandatory minimums)
- Neylan v. Vorwald, 124 Wis. 2d 85 (Wis. 1985) (void judgments may be vacated at any time under § 806.07)
- Mueller v. Brunn, 105 Wis. 2d 171 (Wis. 1982) (earlier source for discussion distinguishing jurisdiction and competency)