Title: State v. Larry G. Edwards
Citation: 2003 WI 68
Docket Number: 2001AP003352-CR
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 27, 2003

2003 WI 68 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-3352-CR 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
v. 
Larry G. Edwards,  
 
Defendant-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
no cite 
(Ct. App. 2002-Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 27, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 5, 2003   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Racine   
 
JUDGE: 
Stephen A. Simanek   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner the cause was argued 
by Michael R. Klos, assistant attorney general, with whom on the 
briefs was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. 
 
For the defendant-respondent there was a brief and oral 
argument by Martha K. Askins, assistant state public defender. 
 
 
2003 WI 68 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  01-3352-CR   
(L.C. No. 
00 CF 836) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Larry G. Edwards,  
 
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 27, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of an order of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed and 
cause remanded.   
 
¶1 
WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.   The State of Wisconsin 
(State) petitions this court to review an order of the court of 
appeals that dismissed the State's appeal.  State v. Edwards, 
No. 01-3352-CR, unpublished order (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2002).  
The circuit court had dismissed a criminal action on the grounds 
that the State had not brought its case against Larry Edwards 
(Edwards) for trial within the statutory time limit.  The State 
then filed a motion for reconsideration with the circuit court, 
requesting that the court specify whether its dismissal was with 
or without prejudice.  The circuit court denied the motion for 
No.  01-3352-CR    
 
2 
 
reconsideration, ruling that its original judgment was with 
prejudice.  The State appealed the denial of its motion for 
reconsideration.  The court of appeals dismissed the appeal on 
the ground that the State's motion for reconsideration did not 
raise a "new issue" that was distinct from the original judgment 
because the original judgment was necessarily with prejudice.  
We respectfully disagree.  We conclude that the State raised a 
"new issue" in its motion for reconsideration because the 
circuit court did not clearly dispose of whether the dismissal 
was with prejudice in its original judgment.  Accordingly, we 
reverse the order of the court of appeals and remand to the 
court of appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion.  
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
¶2 
On October 4, 2000, Edwards, who was incarcerated in 
the Wisconsin prison system, was charged with one count of 
substantial battery and one count of intimidating a victim in 
violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 940.19(3) and 940.45(3) (1999-2000).1  
On November 14, 2000, Edwards signed a request for a prompt 
disposition 
of 
the 
charges 
against 
him 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(2), which is entitled "Prompt disposition of 
intrastate detainers."  Under § 971.11, an inmate may request a 
prompt disposition of an untried criminal case by sending a 
written request to the district attorney.  If an inmate requests 
a speedy disposition under the statute, the "district attorney 
                                                 
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statues are to the 1999-
2000 version unless otherwise indicated.   
No.  01-3352-CR    
 
3 
 
shall bring the case on for trial within 120 days after receipt 
of the request . . . ."  § 971.11(2).  Furthermore, if the 
"district attorney moves to dismiss any pending case or if it is 
not brought on for trial within the time specified in sub. (2) 
or (3) the case shall be dismissed . . . ."  § 971.11(7).   
¶3 
On August 23, 2001, Edwards moved to dismiss the 
charges based on the State's failure to commence a trial.  On 
September 5, 2001, the circuit court for Racine County, Judge 
Stephen Simanek presiding, held a hearing on Edwards' motion.  
The circuit court found that the State had not received Edwards' 
request for a prompt disposition because it had been apparently 
lost in the mail.  Consequently, the circuit court found neither 
Edwards nor the State at fault:  
I don't know if the U.S. Postal Service is the one who 
screwed up here, but I do know that Mr. Edwards did 
nothing wrong.  He did what he was required to do.  
And the State, of course, did nothing wrong.  The 
District Attorney's Office [was not in the wrong], 
because they did not know what his [Edwards'] request 
was.           
   
The circuit court acknowledged that the 120 days does not begin 
to run under Wis. Stat. § 971.11(2) until "receipt" of the 
request; however, the court concluded that if this was the case, 
then "the purpose of the statute is nullified" because the State 
would 
essentially 
have 
"forever 
to 
pursue 
the 
matter."  
Consequently, the circuit court granted Edwards' motion, and 
"order[ed] that 00-CF-0836 be dismissed for noncompliance under 
971.11."    
No.  01-3352-CR    
 
4 
 
 
¶4 
On October 9, 2001, the State filed a motion for 
reconsideration, stating, in part, that "[t]he Court did not 
specify whether the dismissal was with prejudice or without 
prejudice consistent with the ruling in State v. Davis, 242 
Wis. 2d 344, 354 (Ct. App. 2001)."2  On October 23, 2001, the 
circuit court held a hearing on the State's motion for 
reconsideration.  The circuit court framed the dilemma as "what 
do you do in a situation where neither side is at fault?" and 
ultimately decided that the onus should be on the State rather 
than 
Edwards. 
 
In 
denying 
the 
State's 
motion 
for 
reconsideration, the circuit court reasoned as follows:  
The State did nothing wrong here.  Their requirement 
to act is triggered by receipt of something they never 
received.  But if the Court were to allow the 
dismissal to be without prejudice, they would have 
essentially forever to pursue Mr. Edwards. 
 
In light of that, I think it makes no sense to 
dismiss without prejudice because it eliminates any 
remedy, any possible remedy for Mr. Edwards. 
 
I will, therefore, having failed to state with 
specificity back in September, will state at this 
point that the Court's dismissal pursuant to 971.11(7) 
is with prejudice.  Any other way to look at this or 
handle this would leave the defendant with a right 
without a remedy. 
                                                 
2 Wisconsin Stat. § 808.04(4) provides that "an appeal by 
the state . . . shall be initiated within 45 days of entry of 
the judgment or order appealed from."  Wis. Stat. § 808.04(4).  
We note that there is no evidence that the State attempted to 
use a motion for reconsideration as a stalling technique to 
extend its time to appeal.  The State filed its motion for 
reconsideration well before expiration of the 45-day time limit 
for appeal.       
No.  01-3352-CR    
 
5 
 
 
¶5 
The State appealed the circuit court's order denying 
its motion for reconsideration on December 6, 2001.  On December 
21, 2001, the court of appeals requested that the parties submit 
memoranda addressing whether it had jurisdiction over the 
appeal, and the parties submitted the requested memoranda.  The 
court of appeals concluded that it did not have jurisdiction 
over the appeal because "[n]o right to appeal exists from a 
motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues as 
those determined in the order or judgment sought to be 
reconsidered." (citing Silverton Enterprises v. Gen. Cas., 143 
Wis. 2d 661, 665, 442 N.W.2d 154 (Ct. App. 1988; Ver Hagen v. 
Gibbons, 55 Wis. 2d 21, 26, 197 N.W.2d 752 (1972)).  The court 
of appeals reasoned:  
The trial court dismissed because the State failed to 
comply with the speedy disposition requirements of the 
statute.  There would be no sanctions for delays by 
the State if such a dismissal could be without 
prejudice.  We conclude that the very character of the 
dismissal, as well the language of the circuit court 
at the time it dismissed the matter, establish that 
the dismissal was with prejudice.  Since the dismissal 
must be presumed to have been with prejudice, the 
motion for reconsideration did not present a new 
issue.  
Edwards, No. 01-3352-CR, unpublished order (emphasis added).      
¶6 
The State petitioned this court for review of whether 
the court of appeals erred when it concluded that it did not 
have jurisdiction to hear the State's appeal from the circuit 
court's order denying the motion for reconsideration.  This 
court granted the State's petition for review on September 26, 
2002.    
No.  01-3352-CR    
 
6 
 
ANALYSIS 
¶7 
Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that 
it did not have jurisdiction to hear the State's appeal on the 
basis that the State's motion for reconsideration did not raise 
a "new issue" presents a question of law that this court reviews 
de novo.   
¶8 
Neither party disputes that "[n]o right of appeal 
exists from an order denying a motion to reconsider which 
presents the same issues as those determined in the order or 
judgment sought to be reconsidered."  Silverton Enterprises, 143 
Wis. 2d at 665 (citing Marsh v. Milwaukee, 104 Wis. 2d 44, 46, 
310 N.W.2d 615 (1981); Ver Hagen, 55 Wis. 2d at 26)).  In other 
words, an "order is not appealable where . . . the only issues 
raised by the motion were disposed of by the original judgment 
or order."  Ver Hagen, 55 Wis. 2d at 25 (emphasis added).  We 
have stated that in order for a judgment to be final it must 
"dispose of the entire matter in litigation."  Marsh, 104 
Wis. 2d at 48 (emphasis added).  Thus, we focus on the narrow 
issue of whether the State's motion for reconsideration, which 
requested that the circuit court address whether the dismissal 
was with prejudice, raised a "new issue" that was "not disposed 
of by the original order [or judgment]."  Barneveld State Bank 
v. Petersen, 68 Wis. 2d 26, 30, 227 N.W.2d 690 (1975).      
¶9 
Edwards claims that no new issue was raised in the 
State's motion for reconsideration because the motion merely 
asked for clarification, and it can be inferred from the 
transcript of the September 5, 2001 hearing that the circuit 
No.  01-3352-CR    
 
7 
 
court intended to dismiss with prejudice.  In contrast, the 
State argues that its motion for reconsideration presented a new 
issue because the circuit court had not ruled in the September 
5, 2001 hearing whether its order was with prejudice.  Thus, the 
motion for reconsideration asked the circuit court to exercise 
its discretion to determine whether the dismissal was with 
prejudice.   
¶10 At the September 5, 2001 hearing, the circuit court 
did not state whether the dismissal was with prejudice.  There 
is no argument as to whether this issue was explicitly disposed 
of at the September 5th hearing——it was not.  Rather, the 
dispute pertains to whether it was implicitly disposed of in the 
original judgment.  Although Edwards points to language from the 
September 5th hearing to support his contention that the 
original judgment was dismissed with prejudice, we are not 
persuaded.      
¶11 At the September 5th hearing, the circuit court stated 
that "[t]he purpose of the statute is to expedite these things.  
They were not expedited.  Consequences are, he walks.  Motion 
granted."  Edwards argues that these statements make clear that 
the circuit court was dismissing the action with prejudice——we 
are not convinced.  "He walks" could mean forever; it could also 
mean until he is recharged.  The circuit court's decision needed 
clarification.  Furthermore, as evidenced by the State's request 
in its motion for reconsideration, it was obviously not clear to 
the State whether the dismissal was with prejudice.  Although in 
some cases it may be clear that a circuit court is implicitly 
No.  01-3352-CR    
 
8 
 
dismissing an action with prejudice, the record in this case 
does not support this level of certainty.     
 
¶12 In addition, we note that the court of appeals has 
liberally applied the "new issues" test for determining whether 
an order denying reconsideration is appealable.  Harris v. 
Reivitz, 142 Wis. 2d 82, 88, 417 N.W.2d 50 (Ct. App. 1987).  In 
Harris, the court of appeals concluded that the test should be 
liberally applied based on this court's liberalization of 
appealability in adopting the "new issues" test in Ver Hagen.  
Id.  The court also reasoned that "a liberal application of the 
Ver Hagen new issues test is consistent with the policy favoring 
reconsideration.  The supreme court encourages litigants to 
request the trial courts for reconsideration as a method of 
correcting errors."  Id. at 89 (citing Kochel v. Hartford 
Accident & Indem. Co., 66 Wis. 2d 405, 418, 225 N.W.2d 604 
(1975)).    
¶13 In sum, based on our review of the transcripts of the 
circuit court's hearings on September 5, 2001 and October 23, 
2001, we conclude that the State's motion for reconsideration 
raised a new issue, and is therefore appealable.  The State's 
motion for reconsideration requested that the circuit court 
specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.  It 
was not clear from the September 5th hearing whether the 
dismissal was with prejudice; consequently, the issue was not 
"disposed of" in the original judgment.  Only after the October 
23, 2001 hearing on the State's motion for reconsideration was 
it clear that the dismissal was with prejudice.  Therefore, 
No.  01-3352-CR    
 
9 
 
since the motion for reconsideration raised a new issue, the 
State may appeal the denial of its motion for reconsideration to 
the court of appeals.  Accordingly, we reverse the order of the 
court of appeals and remand for proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.     
By the Court.—The order of the court of appeals is 
reversed, and the cause remanded to the court of appeals.   
 
 
 
 
No.  01-3352-CR    
 
 
 
1