Opinion ID: 1806469
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bindover and transfer of the case from county court to circuit court.

Text: The defendant attacks the specific words used by the magistrate in ordering his bindover to the county court for the purpose of accepting a plea. The defendant argues that sec. 954.13 (1), Stats., provides that: he shall be committed to await trial in either county court or circuit court. Defendant contends that the magistrate bound him over for a purpose other than that called for in the statute. His point is that instead of being bound over to await trial, he was bound over for the purpose of accepting a plea. The defendant insists that the magistrate's failure to use the exact words in the statute renders the bindover null and void and divests the court of any jurisdiction which it may have had over the matter. Defendant cites no authority in support of this sweeping conclusion. We think a more reasonable approach to the magistrate's deviation from the exact words of  sec. 954.13 (1), Stats., is to inquire what effect, if any, such deviation had on the defendant's rights. If the defendant had been bound over to await trial, the very next step which would have occurred would have been for the judge to ask the defendant how he wished to plead. Since that is precisely what happened in this case, it is difficult to see how this deviation, which passed without objection at the time of trial, could constitute a manifest injustice under State v. Reppin (1967), 35 Wis. 2d 377, 151 N. W. 2d 9, requiring the withdrawal of a guilty plea. Defendant's next claim of error involves the manner in which his case was transferred to the circuit court for Dodge county. Sec. 256.58 (2), Stats., provides: ... when it appears that an action pending in the county court will be tried by a 12-man jury, the county court may, by order transfer the action to the circuit court of said county, ... Defendant argues that this transfer should not have been made because he never expressly demanded a jury trial. It is correct that no express demand for a jury trial was made by the defendant, but defendant did affirm that he wanted every phase and facet of his case tried out; and he made no objection to the transfer in the county court, nor did he object to the trial court's jurisdiction in the circuit court. Moreover, when the county judge said, ... this Court recognizing the desire of the defendant to have a jury trial, ... neither the defendant nor his attorney said a word. This tacit acquiescence to the judge's remark gave the impression that the action would be tried by a 12-man jury. The statute does not require a specific demand for a 12-man jury in order to transfer the action from the county court to the circuit court. It is sufficient under the statute if it appears that an action ... will be tried by a 12-man jury.  We see no error in the manner in which the action was transferred from the county court to the circuit court. We conclude that the venue was correct; the bindover was properly carried out; and the transfer from county court to circuit court was in conformity with the provisions of sec. 256.58 (2), Stats. It follows that the order of the trial court must be affirmed. By the Court. Judgment and order affirmed.