DocketNumber: Appeal No. 2018AP484
Citation Numbers: 927 N.W.2d 161, 2019 WI App 15, 386 Wis. 2d 352
Judges: Gundrum
Filed Date: 2/6/2019
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/16/2022
¶1 Tracy McCarthy appeals pro se from the order convicting him of disorderly conduct. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 McCarthy was charged with criminal disorderly conduct. The State moved to amend to a Waukesha County ordinance forfeiture violation for disorderly conduct. McCarthy pled to that amended charge, but he now appeals.
¶3 McCarthy raises numerous "issues" on appeal: (1) the trial court "erred in proceeding, when McCarthy's witnesses were properly served and did not show up for trial"; (2) the trial court abused its discretion "by allowing multiple continuances, thus denying McCarthy's right to a speedy trial"; (3) the trial court abused its discretion "by allowing testimony from the impeached arresting officer, Kurt Kezeske to influence the jury"; (4) the trial court abused its discretion "by allowing multiple discovery violations"; (5) the trial court "abused its discretion by not allowing the t.v.6now video of Kurt Kezeske into the record"; and (6) the trial court erred "by allowing a conflict of interest to occur whereas the judge's clerk had a direct interest in the outcome of [the] trial."
¶4 McCarthy can prevail on none of his claims of error. To begin, he fails to provide any citations to the record, and "we will not consider arguments unsupported by citations to the record." See State v. Boshcka ,
¶5 In its reply brief, the State focuses on the fact McCarthy pled to the charge as amended from criminal disorderly conduct to a disorderly conduct ordinance violation. While McCarthy briefs his appeal at times as if he had a jury trial, he cites to no support in the record, and we are able to find none, indicating he had a trial, and the judgment of conviction indicates the matter was resolved by McCarthy's plea to the ordinance violation, as the State asserts. The State argues McCarthy has waived his appellate claims as a result of his plea before the trial court, relying upon the well-known rule that "in most instances, a defendant who pleads guilty waives all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses." See State v. Smiter ,
¶6 While we recognize that McCarthy is pro se, he is still required to abide by the same rules governing attorneys. See Waushara Cty. v. Graf ,
By the Court. -Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to
For "issues" one, two, three, and five, McCarthy provides a one-sentence statement, and on issues four and six he provides two sentences and five sentences, respectively. In none of these "arguments" does McCarthy cite to any legal authority or develop any legal argument supportive of his complaints of error by the trial court.