Case Title: State v. John Fitzgerald Elam

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1994AP001050-CR

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1995-10-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  94-1050-CR 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
State of Wisconsin 
 
 
Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
 
v. 
 
John Fitzgerald Elam 
 
 
Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
FILED 
 
 OCT 4, 1995 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
                                                                   
 
 
 
APPEAL from a judgment and order of the circuit court for 
Milwaukee County, Jeffrey A. Wagner, Judge.  Affirmed. 
 
PER CURIAM.   The court is equally divided on whether to 
affirm or reverse the judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee 
County, Jeffrey A. Wagner, Judge.  Chief Justice Roland B. Day, 
Justice Donald W. Steinmetz and Justice Janine P. Geske would 
affirm.  Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice William A. 
Bablitch and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley would reverse.  Justice Jon 
P. Wilcox did not participate. 
 
This court accepted jurisdiction over this appeal on a 
petition to bypass.  Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.60 (1993-94).  We 
have previously stated that when a tie vote occurs in this court 
on a bypass or certification, "justice is better served in such an 
 
No. 94-1050-CR 
 
 
 
2 
instance by remanding to the court of appeals for their 
consideration."  State v. Richard Knutson, Inc., 191 Wis. 2d  395, 
396-397, 528 N.W.2d 430, (1995).   
 
We do not remand this appeal to the court of appeals because 
the court of appeals has already decided the issue presented in 
this appeal, namely whether Wis. Stat. § 973.012 (1993-94) 
prohibits a defendant from basing an appeal on a sentencing 
court's failure to take sentencing guidelines into consideration. 
 In State v. Halbert, 147 Wis. 2d 123, 131-32, 432 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. 
App. 1988), the court of appeals held that a sentencing court's 
failure to consider the sentencing guidelines is not subject to 
appellate review. 
 
When this very issue came to this court in State v. Speer, 
176 Wis. 2d 1101, 501 N.W.2d 429 (1993), three justices, Chief 
Justice Nathan S. Heffernan and Justices Shirley S. Abrahamson and 
William A. Bablitch, opined that Halbert should be overruled, 
while three justices, Justices Roland B. Day, Donald W. Steinmetz 
and Louis J. Ceci, concluded that Halbert is good law. 
 
A general principle of appellate practice is that a majority 
of the participating judges must have agreed on a particular point 
for it to be considered the opinion of the court.  State v. Dowe, 
120 Wis. 2d 192, 194-95, 352 N.W.2d 660 (1984) (Per Curiam) (a 
concurrence with four votes on an issue represents the majority 
and controls on the issue).  Accordingly, the court concludes that 
Halbert was not overruled by Speer; Halbert is precedential.  
 
No. 94-1050-CR 
 
 
 
3 
 
The court of appeals has referred to the sentencing guideline 
portion of the Speer decision a number of times.  In no case has 
the court of appeals stated that Speer overruled Halbert.  
 
In State v. Miller, 180 Wis. 2d 320, 325, 509 N.W.2d 98 (Ct. 
App. 1993), the court of appeals cited the Speer case for the rule 
that "[w]hile the sentencing guidelines may have indicated that 
probation with or without jail time was the presumptive sentence 
for Miller, the trial court is not required to impose that 
sentence as long as the court considers the guidelines and 
explains its reasons for deviating from them."   
 
In State v. Smet, 186 Wis. 2d 24, 30-31 n.2, 519 N.W.2d 697 
(Ct. App. 1994), the court of appeals did not consider whether 
Speer is binding precedent because the record indicated that the 
circuit court considered the guidelines in that case. 
 
In State v. Fenderson, No. 94-0044-CR (Wis. Ct. App. June 5, 
1995), the court of appeals held that Halbert "remains the 
controlling law" that "a sentencing court's failure to sentence 
within the sentencing guidelines is not a matter for court of 
appeals jurisdiction."  Id. at 1.   
 
For the reasons set forth, the judgment and order of the 
circuit court are affirmed.  
 
Justice Jon P. Wilcox did not participate. 
 
No. 94-1050-CR 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
94-1050-CR 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
John Fitzgerald Elam, 
 
 
 
 
Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
______________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
ON BYPASS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
October 4, 1995 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
September 7, 1995 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee 
 
JUDGE: 
JEFFREY A. WAGNER 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
WILCOX, J., did not participate 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS:  
For the defendant-appellant there were briefs and 
oral argument by Richard D. Martin, assistant state public 
defender. 
 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Paul 
Lundsten, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was 
James E. Doyle, attorney general.