### COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED April 5, 2022

Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See W IS . S TAT . § 808.10 and R ULE 809.62.

Appeal No s . 2020AP1466

2020AP1467 Cir. Ct. No s . 2020TR68 2020TR69

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT III

C ITY OF R HINELANDER ,
P LAINTIFF - R ESPONDENT ,

V .
Z ACHARY T YLER L A F AVE - L A C ROSSE ,
D EFENDANT - A PPELLANT .

APPEAL S from orders of the circuit court for Oneida County:
MICHAEL H. BLOOM , Judge. Affirmed.

¶ 1 GILL, J. 1 Zachary Tyler LaFave

- LaCrosse (hereinafter , “LaFave”) , pro se, appeals from orders entered by the circuit court in two separate cases , now

1 These appeals are decided by one judge pursuant to W IS

. S TAT

. § 752.31(2) (2019

- 20). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019

- 20 version unless otherwise noted.Nos. 2020AP1466 2020AP1467

2 consolidated on appeal, denying LaFave ’s motion to waive trial transcript fees for
his underlying appeal s due to his indigen cy

. LaFave is correct that the court used an improper legal standard in denying his motion

. However , because LaFave has
fail ed to provide any facts or argument showing that his underlying appeal s state a claim upon which relief can be granted , we conclude that h is motion for fee
waiver s was deficient . Accor dingly, we affirm the court’s orders

.
BACKGROUND

¶ 2 On January 18, 2020 , LaFave was cited for o perating a motor
vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant as a first offense and for refusing to take a chemical test of his breath to measure his intoxication after his

arrest. See W IS

. S TAT

. § § 346.63(1)(a) , 343.305(9) (a)
. At a bench trial, LaFave was found guilty on both counts. In April 2020, LaFave filed motions for
reconsideration seeking a new trial

. T he circuit court denied b oth motion s

. ¶ 3 On June 26, 2020, LaFave appealed from both the judgments of
conviction and from the orders den ying his motions for reconsideration. 2 T he appeals were subsequently consolidated

. Concurrent ly , LaFave file d a motion i n the circuit court requesting that any costs for preparing the transcript s required for his appeal s be waived as a result of his indigen t status

. See W IS

. S TAT

. § 814.29(1)

. In that motion, LaFave stated facts supporting his indigency , including that he believed he was under the poverty level and that he was currently

an unemployed student

.

2 Although neither notice of appeal explicitly names the orders denying LaFave’s motion s for r econsideration, they do list the date s those orders were entered

. Accordingly, we consider them to be within the scope of th ese appeal s

.Nos. 2020AP1466 2020AP1467

3 ¶ 4 The circuit court denied LaFave’s motion to waive the requisite transcript fees, reasoning:

The above

- captioned actions are civil proceedings rel ative to traffic regulation, an appeal of which, pursuant to [ W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE ] 809.40, is subject to the requirements of [ W IS

. S TAT

. R ULES ] 809.01 to 809.26. R ULE 809.11(4), provides that, in an appeal of this type, the appellant

— in this case, the defenda nt, [LaFave]

— is responsible for payment of the cost of preparing the transcript. The defendant has pointed to no provision in [ R ULES ] 809.01 to 809.26

— nor is the court aware of any

— that provides for waiver of the cost of preparing the transcript.

¶ 5 LaFave subsequently filed a motion in this court requesting that his transcript fees be waived, arguing that “ [ t ] he transcripts are necessary for this appeal to adequately account and recall information that is needed to present of [ sic ] this case with accuracy.” We denied LaFave’s motion, reasoning that the request for a waiver of a transcript fee s at that time in the proceedings was a matter solely for the circuit court to decide

. We further informed LaFave that he could challenge the fee waiver decision by directly appealing the circuit court’s order denying his original motion to waive the requisite transcript fees. Additionally, we provided LaFave with the following standard governing transcript fee waivers : “In addition to establ ishing one’s indigenc y , a party seeking a transcript fee waiver must establish that he or she has an arguably meritorious claim for relief on appeal and that any issues of arguable merit necessitate a transcript for appellate review.”

¶ 6 LaFave subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the circuit court’s order denying his motion to waive the relevant transcript fees

. Th ese appeal s follow.Nos. 2020AP1466 2020AP1467

4 DISCUSSION

¶ 7 LaFave argues that the circuit court erred in its application of W IS

. S TAT

. § 814.29(1) by denying his motion to waive his transcript fees on the basis
that § 814.29(1) was not applicable in civil traffic cases. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law which this court reviews without deference to the trial

court. Courtyard Condo. Ass’ n, Inc. v. Draper , 2001 WI App 115, ¶5, 244
Wis. 2d 153, 629 N.W.2d 38

. ¶ 8 We agree that t he circuit court applied an improper legal standard on review of LaFave’s motion to waive his transcript fees

. Th e court reasoned that because LaFave’s case was a civil proceeding involving traffic regulations,
LaFave was responsible for the payment for preparing the transcript and was not eligible to have his transcript fee s waived. W IS CONSIN S TAT

. § 814.29(1) does

not , however, bar the waiver of transcript fees in civil or traffic

- related cases

. Instead, it explicitly allows for “any person” to commence, prosecute , or defend “any action” without being required to pay a fee, as long as the court makes a finding of poverty

. See § 814.29(1)(a) , (d). The City of Rhinelander (“the City”)
concedes in its brief that § 814.29 allows for the waiver of a fee in this type of

case

. Additionally, f

ee waivers have explicitly been interpreted to be applicable in
civil cases. State ex rel. Girouard v. Circuit Ct. for Jackson Cnty. , 155 Wis. 2d 148, 153, 454 N.W.2d 792 (1990)

. Accor dingly, the court erred when it denied LaFave’s motion on the basis that a fee waiver was u navailable in his case

. ¶ 9 Despite th e circuit court’s error, LaFave’s request for the wai ver of his transcript fees fail s on separate statutory grounds

. In order to obtain a fee
waiver under W IS

. S TAT

. § 814.29(1), LaFave must show both that he is indigent and that his underlying appeal s stat e a claim on which relief can be granted.Nos. 2020AP1466 2020AP1467

5 See Girouard , 155 Wis. 2d at 153 ; State ex rel. Luedtke v. Bertrand , 220 Wis. 2d 574, 578, 583 N.W.2d 858 (Ct. App. 1998), aff’d by an equally divided court , 226
Wis. 2d 271, 594 N.W.2d 370 (1999), superseded by s tatute on other grounds ; see also State v. Boruch , No. 2018AP152, unpublished slip op. ¶19 (WI App May 19, 2020). 3 The analysis of whether a claim has been made upon which relief

can be granted is a question of law for our independent review. Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC , 2014 WI 86, ¶17, 356 Wis. 2d 665, 849
N.W.2d 693

. ¶ 10 T he parties do not dispute that LaFave is indigent for the purposes of
W IS

. S TAT

. § 814.29(1). LaFave has failed , however, to provide facts or argument s showing that his underlying appeal s state a claim u pon which relief can be granted. In his motion to waive transcript fees and in his appellate brief,
LaFave solely recites facts regarding his indigent status . He does not discuss the
merits of his clai ms.
¶ 11 Although we acknowledge the difficulties in navigating statutory requirements as a pro se litigant, LaFave was provided notice several times that he
needed to make substantive arguments about his claims in order to be entitled to a
fee waiver for the transcripts. T his court provided notice to LaFave prior to th ese appeal s that “ a party seeking a transcript fee waiver must establish that he or she has an arguably meritorious claim for relief on appeal and that any issues of arguable merit necessitate a transcript for appellate review. ” The City noted this deficiency in its brief, but LaFave elected not to file a reply brief , thereby

3 Unpublished opin ions authored by a single judge, issued on or after July 1, 2009 , may be cited for their persuasiv e value. See W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809. 23(3)(b).Nos. 2020AP1466 2020AP1467

6 conceding the issue

. See Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Sec. Corp. , 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1979) (unrefuted arguments may be deemed conceded)

. ¶ 12 La F ave’s only potentially relevant argument in his br ief is to point
out that in his second motion to waive transcript fees

— filed in this court after the
circuit c ourt denied his initial motion

— he stated that “ [ t ] he transcripts are necessary for this appeal to adequately account and recall information that is needed to present of [ sic ] this case with accuracy.” LaFave did not, however, make that argument in support of his motion to the circuit court , and the motion he
references was denied by this court. In addition, the language is nonspecific and
does not present sufficient facts or arguments such that it demonstrates that his underlying appeal s state a claim upon which relief can be granted

. 4

¶ 13 LaFave also appears to argue in his appellate brief that the only

ev idence supporting the circuit court’s original judgments was testimony , and that as a result, he would require transcripts on appea l. LaFave does not , however, explain how this testimony provides evidence of issues of arguable merit , necessitating a transcript for his appeal s

. This undeveloped argument does not show that LaFave’s underlying appeal s state a claim on which relief can be granted

. As a result , he is not entitled to a fee waiver under W IS

. S TAT

. § 814.29(1)

.

4 Although LaFave discussed the merits of his case

— including the circuit court’s credibility determination

— in a motion to stay brought before the circuit court, he failed to do so where required in either his moti on to waive the requisite transcript fees or in his appellate brief. Accordingly, this separate motion to stay does not entitle LaFave to a fee waiver under W IS

. S TAT

. § 814.29(1)

.Nos. 2020AP1466 2020AP1467

7 ¶ 14 Despite the notice provided to him , LaFave did not attempt to amend or supplement his original motion or to make any further arguments on appeal as
to the merits of his claim

— only re asserting his indigent status. Although not a high bar, LaFave failed to provide any facts or evid ence establishing that he had a claim upon which relief could be granted and for which he required a transcript for
appe llate review.

¶ 15 Therefore, although the circuit c ourt used an improper standard in denying LaFave’s motion to waive his transcript fees, we conclude that LaFave
failed to meet the statutory requirements under W IS

. S TAT

. § 814.29 and tha t his
motion was therefore deficient

. We will not reverse a correct decision of the
circuit court even though the reason for that decision may have been erroneously expressed. See State ex rel. Schultz v. Bruendl , 168 Wis. 2d 101, 113, 483
N.W.2d 238 (Ct. App. 1992). If a circuit court reaches the correct result, even for the wrong reason, the cou rt’s decision will be affirmed. See State v. Amrine , 157
Wis. 2d 778, 783, 460 N.W.2d 826 (Ct. App. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order s

.

By the Court.

— Orders affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(1)(b)4.