Title: State v. Charles Chvala

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 30 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-0442-CR 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
     v. 
Charles Chvala,  
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
2004 WI App 53 
Reported at:  271 Wis. 2d 115, 678 N.W.2d 880 
(Ct. App. 2004-Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 23, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
January 6, 2005 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dane   
 
JUDGE: 
Daniel R. Moeser   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: WILCOX, PROSSER, and BUTLER, J.J., did not 
participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by 
James A. Olson, Dixon R. Gahnz, John C. Carlson, Jr. and Lawton 
& Cates, S.C., Madison, and oral argument by James A. Olson. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by 
Barbara L. Oswald, assistant attorney general, with whom on the 
brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. 
 
 
2005 WI 30 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-0442-CR  
(L.C. No. 
02 CF 2451) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Charles Chvala,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 23, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The court is unanimous in determining 
that the charges against the petitioner do not violate the 
doctrine of separation of powers, nor do such charges involve a 
violation of the Speech and Debate Clause of the Wisconsin 
Constitution (Art. IV, § 16).  Further, the court is unanimous 
in 
determining 
that 
Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) 
(2001-02), 
the 
statute that the petitioner has been charged with violating, 
does not here circumscribe legitimate legislative activity and, 
therefore, is not overbroad.  The court is also unanimous in 
determining that the issues presented are justiciable, in that 
No. 
03-0442-CR   
 
2 
 
the political question doctrine does not interfere with the 
court deciding these matters.     
¶2 
The court is also unanimous in holding that the 
petitioner has standing to raise the issues related to Due 
Process, 
Fair 
Notice, 
and 
the 
vagueness 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 946.12(3) as applied, but the court is equally divided as to 
whether the petitioner has met the burden of establishing that 
the charges here violate those principles.  Chief Justice 
Shirley S. Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley would affirm 
the court of appeals on those issues, and Justice N. Patrick 
Crooks and Justice Patience D. Roggensack would reverse on those 
issues.  
¶3 
Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed.  
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed.   
¶4 
Justices JON P. WILCOX, DAVID T. PROSSER, JR., and 
LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR. did not participate. 
 
 
No. 
03-0442-CR   
 
 
 
1