It took 321 days to finish an initial appearance: appeals court orders dismissal of charges
By Gretchen Schuldt
Brown County must dismiss felony charges against a man who sat in jail while completion of his initial court appearance dragged on for 321 days because the State Public Defender's office could not find a lawyer to represent him, the state Court of Appeals ruled last week.
Christopher S. Butler's preliminary hearing was held 21 days later even though state law requires it to be held within 10 days after the initial appearance.
When adjourning an initial appearance "solely to locate counsel for a defendant ... circuit courts and court commissioners must make factual findings on the record considering the justification for the adjournment, the possible prejudice to the defendant, and, where applicable, public interest," Appellate Judge Gregory B. Gill Jr. wrote for the three-member District III Court of Appeals panel. "The record before us lacks any evidence of such considerations."
He was joined in his decision by Appellate Judges Thomas M. Hruz and Lisa K. Stark.
The charges can be dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can be refiled.
Butler was arrested by Green Bay police after they received a report that he molested two young girls. He was arrested and placed on a probation hold. He was charged on Oct. 23, 2019, with three felonies, all as repeaters: two counts of repeated sexual assault of the same child and one count of exposing genitals to a child.
Butler's initial appearance began that day. A court commissioner, identified in online court records as Paul E. Burke, set bail at $75,000 and said he would schedule a continuation of the hearing.
"At the time, the Brown County Circuit Court’s policy was to adjourn a defendant’s initial appearance until counsel was appointed to represent the defendant," Gill wrote.
Butler remained behind bars. He had six adjourned initial appearances from Oct. 23, 2019, to April 20, 2020.
"At each hearing, an SPD attorney appeared with Butler, and he or she informed a court commissioner that the SPD was still attempting to find an attorney to represent Butler," Gill wrote.
The State Public Defender's office appoints private bar attorneys to handle cases of indigent defendants when SPD staff attorneys can't handle the cases themselves, due to things like workload issues or conflicts of interest. SPD pays the private lawyers $70 per hour, well below the going rate for lawyers. The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee has recommended increasing the pay to $100 per hour.
In February, 2020, Butler had a probation revocation hearing and an administrative judge found in his favor. His probation was not revoked. The parole hold was lifted, but Butler could not make bond and remained in jail.
In March, 2020, Butler filed a speedy trial demand on his own behalf. He argued that the court lost personal jurisdiction (a court's power over a party to a case) because his preliminary hearing was not held in a timely manner.
"The motion was never formally held or ruled on by a court commissioner or the circuit court," Gill said.
A lawyer accepted an SPD appointment to handle the case, but five days later withdrew, saying she did not know whether she could meet Butler's speedy trial demand. The commissioner warned Butler that it could take a long time to find a lawyer for him.
There were more adjourned initial appearances. Butler's bail dropped to $50,000 in May, 2020, but he remained in jail. He filed another pro se motion arguing his constitutional rights were being violated.
The prosecution filed a letter with the court that June expressing concern about how long Butler's case was on hold. There had been 12 court appearances in eight months, the state said.
In July, Brown County Circuit Judge Beau G. Liegeois held a hearing and said he would " 'troubleshoot getting an attorney appointed faster,' " Gill wrote. "The court then set another adjourned initial appearance for later that month."
At that hearing, before a court commissioner, Butler asked how long it would take to find a lawyer.
"The court commissioner (Chad Resar, per online records) responded, '[T]he only thing we can do is just see what will happen, if anyone is willing to appoint you an attorney,' " Gill said.
More hearings were held on July 16, July 23, and July 30. A lawyer finally was appointed on Aug. 13, 2020.
Butler's initial appearance was completed Sept. 8 – 321 days after he was charged. A preliminary hearing was held Sept. 29, and a court commissioner bound Butler over for trial. Butler pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to dismiss because the state failed to hold a preliminary hearing within 10 days of his initial appearance, as required by law. Liegeois denied the motion; Butler appealed.
The state argued on appeal that Butler forfeited his personal jurisdiction challenges because he did not object after his initial appearance was completed, at his preliminary hearing, or when he was arraigned.
The appeals panel rejected that contention. "Butler’s objections to personal jurisdiction, which occurred prior to the initial appearance being completed, were more than sufficient to give 'both parties and the circuit court notice of the issue and a fair opportunity to address the objection,' " Gill wrote.
A court does have inherent authority to adjourn initial appearances, as they do preliminary hearings, but must consider the justification for the relief, the possible prejudice to the defendant, and public interest, he said.
"Particularly troubling is that, at the time of Butler’s pretrial detention, the blanket policy of the Brown County Circuit Court was to continuously adjourn initial appearances until counsel was located," Gill wrote.
In addition, he said, "the court did not consider appointing an attorney at county expense, which 'might prove more compelling to private attorneys,' as they would not have to go through the SPD’s qualification process and would receive greater compensation."
Neither the judge nor the court commissioners considered the total delay in Butler's case, he said.
"Additionally, it is clear from the record that the circuit court or court commissioners failed to consider 'the possible prejudice' to Butler when deciding to continuously adjourn his initial appearance," Gill wrote. "For example, the court did not consider the potential prejudice to Butler from 'further evidence gathering by police while incarcerated and the possibility that the delay could compromise the defense or result in lost evidence.' "
The state erroneously argued that Butler "terminated" his first appointed lawyer, the panel said. That lawyer withdrew because she could not meet the speedy trial deadline and provide competent counsel. Butler did not invite the error, Gill said.
"To hold otherwise would require Butler to choose between two constitutional rights: the right to a speedy trial and the right to representation by counsel," he said.
The state also was wrong in its argument that any rights violations were harmless errors because Butler was on probation hold and then was bound over for trial, he wrote.
"We disagree that the violations in this case did not affect Butler’s substantial rights," he said. "The purpose behind conducting a timely initial appearance and a timely preliminary hearing would be frustrated if the state was allowed to simply argue that probable cause existed based upon a finding made months or years later – in this case, 342 days – without any protection to the accused beforehand."
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin