785.03(3)
(3) Appeal. A defendant aggrieved by a determination under this chapter may appeal in accordance with
s. 809.30 if the proceeding was prosecuted by the state.
785.03 History
History: 1979 c. 257;
1983 a. 377.
785.03 Annotation
Juvenile court contempt procedures discussed. In re Contempt Finding Against B.L.P. 118 W (2d) 33, 345 NW (2d) 510 (Ct. App. 1984).
785.03 Annotation
Contempt proceeding prosecuted by family court commissioner under 767.29 (1) was "prosecuted by the state" within meaning of 785.03 (3). In re Marriage of Biel v. Biel, 130 W (2d) 335, 387 NW (2d) 295 (Ct. App. 1986).
785.03 Annotation
Contemnor has right to allocution in summary contempt proceedings. Contempt in State v. Dewerth, 139 W (2d) 544, 407 NW (2d) 862 (1987).
785.03 Annotation
Because trial court had no personal knowledge of circumstances surrounding subpoenaed witness's failure to appear, (2) summary procedures were inappropriate. Matter of Contempt in State v. Levin, 146 W (2d) 166, 430 NW (2d) 718 (Ct. App. 1988).
785.03 Annotation
Summary contempt proceeding is not "prosecuted by the state" and appeal is pursuant to 808.04 (1). Matter of Contempt in State v. Simmons, 150 W (2d) 178, 441 NW (2d) 308 (Ct. App. 1989).
785.03 Annotation
Attorney's tardiness is not contempt committed in actual presence of court; summary procedure under (2) is, therefore, unavailable. Gower v. Marinette County Circ. Court, 154 W (2d) 1, 452 NW (2d) 354 (1990).
785.03 Annotation
Sentence requiring imprisonment for definite period of time without possibility of purging through compliance with court order is permitted only via punitive sanction proceedings. State ex rel. N.A. v. G.S., 156 W (2d) 338, 456 NW (2d) 867 (Ct. App. 1990).
785.03 Annotation
Defense counsel's audible remark, "ridiculous", uttered upon entry of the sentence against her client sufficiently impinged on the court's ability to discharge its duties to warrant the use of summary contempt proceedings, but failure to allow allocution rendered order unenforceable. Olivetto v. Crawford County Cir. Court, 194 W (2d) 419, 533 NW (2d) 819 (1995).
785.03 Annotation
A remedial sanction must be purgeable. A punitive sanction need not be purgeable but may only be imposed after provision of due process, proceeding under sub. (1) (b). In re Paternity of Cy C. J. 196 W (2d) 964, 539 NW (2d) 703 (Ct. App. 1995).
785.03 Annotation
A nonsummary contempt motion is a part of the underlying action from which it arises, and the time allowed for requesting judicial substitution runs from the commencement of the action, not from receipt of notice of the contempt proceeding. James L. J. v. Walworth County Circuit Court, 200 W (2d) 496, 546 NW (2d) 460 (1996).
785.03 Annotation
When a defendant's liberty is threatened in a remedial contempt action, the court must advise the defendant of the right to appointed counsel if the defendant is indigent. The circuit court must initiate a colloquy clearly conveying the right to the defendant and inquiring whether the defendant believes himself or herself indigent. State v. Pultz, 206 W (2d) 111, 556 NW (2d) 708 (1996).
785.04
785.04
Sanctions authorized. 785.04(1)
(1)
Remedial sanction. A court may impose one or more of the following remedial sanctions:
785.04(1)(a)
(a) Payment of a sum of money sufficient to compensate a party for a loss or injury suffered by the party as the result of a contempt of court.
785.04(1)(b)
(b) Imprisonment if the contempt of court is of a type included in
s. 785.01 (1) (b),
(bm),
(c) or
(d). The imprisonment may extend only so long as the person is committing the contempt of court or 6 months, whichever is the shorter period.
785.04(1)(c)
(c) A forfeiture not to exceed $2,000 for each day the contempt of court continues.
785.04(1)(d)
(d) An order designed to ensure compliance with a prior order of the court.
785.04(1)(e)
(e) A sanction other than the sanctions specified in
pars. (a) to
(d) if it expressly finds that those sanctions would be ineffectual to terminate a continuing contempt of court.
785.04(2)(a)(a)
Nonsummary procedure. A court, after a finding of contempt of court in a nonsummary procedure under
s. 785.03 (1) (b), may impose for each separate contempt of court a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year or both.
785.04(2)(b)
(b)
Summary procedure. A court, after a finding of contempt of court in a summary procedure under
s. 785.03 (2), may impose for each separate contempt of court a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or both.
785.04(3)
(3) Past conduct. A punitive sanction may be imposed for past conduct which was a contempt of court even though similar present conduct is a continuing contempt of court.
785.04 History
History: 1979 c. 257;
1993 a. 78.
785.04 Annotation
Court may award attorney fees and other litigation costs under (1) (a). Town of Seymour v. City of Eau Claire, 112 W (2d) 313, 332 NW (2d) 821 (Ct. App. 1983).
785.04 Annotation
Purge condition must be within power of contemnor and be reasonably related to cause or nature of the contempt. In re Marriage of Larsen v. Larsen, 159 W (2d) 672, 465 NW (2d) 225 (Ct. App. 1990).
785.05
785.05
Limitation on imprisonment. In any case in which the contempt of court is based upon interference with visitation rights granted under
s. 48.925 (1), or upon failure to respond to a citation, summons or warrant under
s. 345.28 or any other failure to pay or to appear in court for a nonmoving traffic violation, the court may not impose imprisonment as a sanction under this chapter.
785.05 History
History: 1981 c. 165;
1991 a. 191.
785.06
785.06
Court commissioners, municipal courts and administrative agencies. A court commissioner, municipal court or state administrative agency conducting an action or proceeding or a party to the action or proceeding may petition the circuit court in the county in which the action or proceeding is being conducted for a remedial or punitive sanction specified in
s. 785.04 for conduct specified in
s. 785.01 in the action or proceeding.
785.06 History
History: 1979 c. 257.
785.06 Annotation
See note to 767.29, citing State ex rel. Stedman v. Rohner, 149 W (2d) 146, 438 NW (2d) 585 (1989).
