State v. Nhia Lee, 973 N.W.2d 764

Background

Defendant Nhia Lee was arrested and made an initial appearance in a new case on Sept. 10–11, 2018 after authorities discovered he used a false name; preliminary examination did not occur until 113 days after the initial appearance.
Lee spent 113 days in custody before the preliminary exam, of which about 101 days preceded appointment of counsel by the State Public Defender (SPD).
The circuit court and court commissioners repeatedly extended the 10‑day statutory deadline for a preliminary examination under Wis. Stat. § 970.03(2); the extensions were routinely justified by the absence of appointed counsel, often without on‑the‑record findings of cause.
The court of appeals held the extensions were erroneous and directed dismissal of the criminal complaint without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review but dismissed the petition as improvidently granted; Justices Grassl Bradley, Ziegler, and Hagedorn concurred in that disposition; Justices Dallet and Ann Walsh Bradley dissented, urging attention to systemic appointment delays and broader reforms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court may extend the 10‑day preliminary‑examination deadline "for cause" solely because counsel has not yet been appointed	Extensions justified only if supported by articulated, case‑specific reasons; mere absence of SPD appointment is insufficient	Extensions were improper; delays violated statutory and constitutional rights	Court of appeals (and concurring opinion): extensions based solely on lack of appointed counsel were erroneous under Selders standard
Proper remedy when a timely preliminary exam is not held	Follow precedent: dismissal without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction	Lee sought dismissal with prejudice (or argued court lost competency)	Precedent requires dismissal without prejudice; no special justification to depart
Whether Lee’s Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial, right‑to‑counsel, or Fourteenth Amendment due‑process claims require relief now	These constitutional claims are premature on the record and may not yield the remedy sought	Delay in appointing counsel infringed constitutional rights and warrants relief	Claims deemed premature; not resolved on merits in this appeal
Whether the Supreme Court should use superintending authority to require county‑paid appointments or otherwise mandate systemic reforms	Policymaking (including funding) is for the legislature and rulemaking processes, not this case; court review should decide legal issues only	Court should use this case to highlight and remedy systemic failures (e.g., require county appointments, increase pay, other reforms)	Supreme Court dismissed review as improvidently granted; concurrence declined to use this case to enact policy; dissent urged reforms and use of supervisory powers

Key Cases Cited

State v. Selders, 163 Wis. 2d 607, 472 N.W.2d 526 (Ct. App. 1991) (sets factors for exercising discretion to extend preliminary‑exam deadline)
Armstrong v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 282, 198 N.W.2d 357 (1972) (remedy for untimely preliminary exam is dismissal without prejudice)
Crummel v. State, 46 Wis. 2d 348, 174 N.W.2d 517 (1970) (same)
State ex rel. Klinkiewicz v. Duffy, 35 Wis. 2d 369, 151 N.W.2d 63 (1967) (same)
State v. Williams, 198 Wis. 2d 516, 544 N.W.2d 406 (1996) (describes preliminary examination purpose and defendant rights)
Douglas County v. Edwards, 137 Wis. 2d 65, 403 N.W.2d 438 (1987) (trial court authority to appoint counsel when necessary)
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (probable‑cause determination requirement following arrest)
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (timing standards for prompt probable‑cause determinations)
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (importance of counsel to plea bargaining and fair disposition)
Hennessy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 400 Wis. 2d 50, 968 N.W.2d 684 (2022) (explains need for special justification to depart from precedent)
Koschkee v. Evers, 382 Wis. 2d 666, 913 N.W.2d 878 (2018) (discusses use of superintending authority for great and irreparable hardship)