Title: State v. Jeffrey Townsend

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 31 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP429-CR 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
     v. 
Jeffrey Townsend, 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
2006 WI App 177 
Reported at: ___ Wis. 2d ___, 722 N.W.2d 753 
(Ct. App. 2006—Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 15, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
February 14, 2007   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee   
 
JUDGE: 
Jeffrey A.Conen 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs and 
oral argument by Ellen Henak, assistant state public defender. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by William L. 
Gansner, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was 
Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. 
 
 
 
 
2007 WI 31
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2003AP429-CR  
(L.C. No. 
2001CF5345) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffrey Townsend, 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 15, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed as 
improvidently granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Jeffrey Townsend petitioned this court 
for review of a court of appeals decision State v. Townsend, 
2006 WI App 177, __ Wis. 2d __, 722 N.W.2d 753, which affirmed a 
circuit court order denying his motion seeking to dismiss his 
judgment of conviction on the ground that the State of Illinois 
violated the statutory procedures of the Interstate Agreement on 
Detainers (IAD).  By order dated October 10, 2006, this court 
granted the petition for review to consider the appropriate 
remedy for the State of Illinois' violation of the IAD.  Oral 
argument in this case was conducted on February 14, 2007. 
No. 
2003AP429-CR   
 
2 
 
¶2 
At the oral argument, counsel for the parties informed 
the court that they believed the petitioner had absconded from 
his supervision on parole on the conviction and sentence under 
review.  The court directed the parties to confirm Townsend's 
status and to advise the court of the effect of that status on 
his pending appeal.  The parties confirmed that Townsend has 
absconded from his parole supervision.  Counsel for the 
petitioner urged the court to retain the matter. 
¶3 
It is within the discretion of the court to refuse to 
decide a criminal appeal if the defendant cannot be made to 
respond to the court's judgment.  See Smith v. United States, 94 
U.S. 97 (1876).  Having considered the matter, the court will 
dismiss the petition for review as improvidently granted. 
By the Court.—The review of the decision of the Court of 
Appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted. 
 
 
No. 
2003AP429-CR   
 
 
 
1