Title: State v. Anthony M. Welda

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2009 WI 35 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP2024-CR 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
     v. 
Anthony Michael Welda, 
          Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
(no cite) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 19, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 16, 2009   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Rock   
 
JUDGE: 
James P. Daley   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For 
the 
defendant-respondent-petitioner 
the 
cause 
was 
argued by Walter H. Isaacson, assistant state public defender, 
with whom on the briefs was Barbara L. Gerber, assistant state 
public defender. 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant the cause was argued by 
Katherine Desmond Lloyd, assistant attorney general, with whom 
on the brief was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Robyn S. Shapiro and 
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Milwaukee; Bradley J. Andreozzi, 
Mark S. Melickian, Lionel W. Weaver, and Drinker Biddle & Reath 
LLP, Chicago, Ill.; Deborah R. Cohen and Anti-Defamation League, 
New York, N.Y.; and Clare M. Pinkert and Anti-Defamation League, 
Chicago, Ill., on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League. 
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 35
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
No. 2007AP2024-CR   
(L.C. No. 
2006CM2843) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin   
 
 
Plaintiff-Appellant,   
 
 
v. 
 
Anthony Michael Welda,   
 
 
Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner.   
FILED 
 
MAY 19, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The defendant, Anthony Michael Welda, 
petitioned for review of a decision of the court of appeals 
reversing an order of the Circuit Court for Rock County, James 
P. Daley, Judge.1  We granted the petition for review, heard oral 
argument, and now conclude that the petition for review was 
improvidently granted.   
¶2 
In September 2006 the State filed a criminal complaint 
against the defendant, charging him with disorderly conduct 
                                                 
1 State 
v. 
Trappe, 
Nos. 
2007AP2021-CR, 
2007AP2024-CR, 
2007AP2027-CR, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. July 24, 
2008). 
No.  2007AP2024-CR 
 
2 
 
contrary to Wis. Stat. § 947.01 (2005-06).2  The complaint also 
charged the defendant with a hate-crime penalty enhancer under 
Wis. Stat. § 939.645(1) and (2)(a).3  The defendant filed a 
motion to dismiss the complaint against him, as well as a 
separate motion seeking to dismiss the hate-crime penalty 
enhancer 
independent of the underlying disorderly conduct 
charge.   
¶3 
The circuit court denied the defendant's motion to 
dismiss the complaint but granted the motion to dismiss the 
penalty enhancer.  The State successfully petitioned for leave 
                                                 
2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2005-06 version unless otherwise indicated. 
3 Wisconsin Stat. § 939.645 provides in relevant part as 
follows:  
(1) If a person does all of the following, the 
penalties for the underlying crime are increased as 
provided in sub. (2): 
(a) Commits a crime under chs. 939 to 948. 
(b) Intentionally selects the person against whom the 
crime under par. (a) is committed or selects the 
property that is damaged or otherwise affected by the 
crime under par. (a) in whole or in part because of 
the actor's belief or perception regarding the race, 
religion, 
color, 
disability, 
sexual 
orientation, 
national origin or ancestry of that person or the 
owner or occupant of that property, whether or not the 
actor's belief or perception was correct. 
(2)  
(a) 
If 
the 
crime 
committed 
under 
sub. 
(1) 
is 
ordinarily 
a 
misdemeanor 
other 
than 
a 
Class 
A 
misdemeanor, the revised maximum fine is $10,000 and 
the revised maximum term of imprisonment is one year 
in the county jail. 
No.  2007AP2024-CR 
 
3 
 
to appeal the circuit court's nonfinal order dismissing the 
penalty enhancer.  The defendant did not petition for leave to 
appeal the nonfinal ruling denying his motion to dismiss the 
complaint.  The disorderly conduct charge remains pending 
against the defendant.   
¶4 
In his brief to the court of appeals, the defendant 
urged that the circuit court's order dismissing the hate-crime 
penalty enhancer should be affirmed because application of the 
penalty enhancer in the present case would result in a 
multiplicity of punishment contrary to the Fifth Amendment to 
the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the 
Wisconsin Constitution.  The court of appeals rejected the 
defendant's multiplicity argument and reversed the circuit 
court.  
¶5 
The defendant presented one issue in his petition for 
review 
to 
this 
court, 
namely 
the 
issue 
relating 
to 
multiplicitous punishment that was decided by the court of 
appeals.  We granted the defendant's petition but ordered the 
parties to address two additional issues in their briefs to this 
court:  
(1) Does the hate-crime penalty enhancer, as applied 
to the defendant in the present case, violate the 
First Amendment to the United States Constitution in 
light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in 
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)? 
(2) Is this case a "speech only" disorderly conduct 
case or could the facts support a disorderly conduct 
charge based on the defendant's actions in addition to 
his speech?   
No.  2007AP2024-CR 
 
4 
 
¶6 
The parties agree in their briefs before this court 
that the present case should be viewed as a "speech only" 
disorderly conduct case.  They do not agree whether the hate-
crime penalty enhancer is unconstitutional as applied to the 
defendant.   
¶7 
After examining the record and the briefs of the 
parties, and after hearing oral argument, we have determined 
that it would be premature for this court to decide whether the 
hate-crime penalty enhancer is unconstitutional as applied to 
the defendant in the present case.  The facts relating to the 
defendant's conduct have not been fully developed at this early 
stage in the proceedings.  Furthermore, it is uncertain whether 
the defendant will be convicted of disorderly conduct.  If the 
defendant is not convicted of disorderly conduct, the issues 
relating to the penalty enhancer will be moot. 
¶8 
Although it would not be premature to review the issue 
that was decided by the court of appeals and was raised in the 
defendant's petition for review, that issue is not one upon 
which we would have granted review.  The court accepted review 
of this case primarily to address the issue of constitutional 
law that the court itself raised in our order granting the 
defendant's petition.   
¶9 
For the reasons set forth, we conclude that review in 
this case was improvidently granted, and we dismiss the petition 
for review.  The matter is remanded to the circuit court for 
further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.   
No.  2007AP2024-CR 
 
5 
 
By the Court.—The review of the decision of the court of 
appeals is dismissed. 
No.  2007AP2024-CR 
 
 
 
1