Court Opinion

ID: 9516613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:47:05.533474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:27.528419
License: Public Domain

DAY, J.
(dissenting). I dissent. The Wisconsin State Legislature has had three years to change the statute interpreted by this court in Hoppenrath v. State, 97 Wis. 2d 449, 293 N.W.2d 910 (1980), on appeal rights and has not done so. The usual cannon applied is that legislative acceptance of a judicial interpretation of a statute settles the issue as to what that statute means.
This court in Hoppenrath held that a finding that a defendant is not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is not a judgment of conviction and hence no right of appeal exists as to the guilt phase of a trifur-cated trial.
*512This Court in Hoppenrath, 97 Wis. 2d at 456-457, pointed out:
“In addition, sec. 972.13(1), Stats., provides that a ‘judgment of conviction shall be entered upon a verdict of guilty by the jury, a finding of guilty by the court in cases where a jury is waived, or a plea of guilty or no contest.’ In this case the defendant, Hoppenrath, was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and was, in effect, acquitted, and thus stands unconvicted of any crime.
“Furthermore, in sec. 972.13(2), Stats., the legislature has seen fit to direct the courts that upon entering a judgment of conviction, the court shall either ‘impose or withhold sentence and, if the defendant is not fined or imprisoned, the defendant shall be placed on probation. . . .’ In this case the defendant was not sentenced to confinement, fined or placed on probation because these sentencing alternatives are only available to a court after a finding of guilty and are not available after a finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Rather than sentencing the defendant, the trial court in compliance with the statute reviewed the evidence in order to make a finding as to whether the defendant was presently suffering from a mental disease or defect and in need of institutionalized treatment, because he was a danger to himself or to others. Only after an affirmative finding was the defendant committed." (Emphasis in original.)
Section 972.13(1) cited in Hoppenrath mandates the only provisions upon which a judgment of conviction may be entered. They are:
“1. when there is a verdict of guilty by the jury;
“2. when there is a finding of guilty by the court where a jury is waived;
“3. when there is a plea of guilty (if accepted by the court); and
“4. when there is a plea of no contest (if accepted by the court).” Hoppenrath, 97 Wis. 2d at 459.
*513This Court interpreted sec. 971.31(10)1 as requiring a judgment of conviction before there could be an appeal. This court held that a judgment of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect “does not constitute a judgment of conviction.” Hoppenrath, 97 Wis. 2d at 460.
In the case before us, the right of appeal is a statutory right not a constitutional right. The statute Smith relies on is the general appeal statute.
But there is no “judgment of conviction” since Smith was found not guilty and hence no right of appeal.
This court in State v. Jakubowski, 61 Wis. 2d 220, 223, 212 N.W.2d 155 (1973), held:
“The right to appellate review is a statutory right and, absent a statutory provision to that effect, no appeal may be had.
“. [T]his court has appellate jurisdiction only as allowed by statute, and only to the extent the statute allows. If a case appealed to this court does not come within the terms of a statute allowing such appeal, this court has no jurisdiction to do anything other than dismiss the appeal, . . .’ State v. Omernik, 54 Wis. 2d 220, 222, 194 N.W.2d 617 (1972). Id. at 223.” Cited with approval in Hoppenrath, 97 Wis. 2d at 462.
If the legislature wants to provide for an appeal from the guilt phase of a trifurcated trial in cases where a defendant is found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, it may do so. But it hasn’t. The statute is clear and this court should follow it.
There is no right of appeal by a defendant from a judgment of acquittal following a jury finding of “not guilty” even though the trial may have been replete with the grossest errors that would have demanded reversal *514had the finding and conviction been one of guilty. The reason is that in criminal law in this State the only right of appeal is from a judgment conviction. Smith was not convicted. He was found “not guilty” by reason of mental disease or defect.
I would affirm the court of appeals.
I am authorized to state that JUSTICES WILLIAM G. CALLOW and LOUIS J. CECI join this dissenting opinion.

 “971.31 Motions before trial. . . . (10) An order denying a motion to suppress evidence or a motion challenging the admissibility of a statement of a defendant may be reviewed upon appeal from a judgment of conviction notwithstanding the fact that such judgment was entered upon a plea of guilty.”