Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

A reminder about preserving arguments

State v. Brian Kiale Little, 2012AP2162, District 4, 6/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A year after Little pled no contest to carrying a concealed weapon he filed a motion for return of the gun and ammunition involved in the offense. The circuit court denied the motion because § 968.20(1m)(b) prohibits return of a dangerous weapon to a person who committed a crime involving the use of the weapon. (¶2).

Little appealed, arguing the circuit court had a duty to inform him at the outset of the case that he’d have to forfeit the gun and that forfeiture of the gun was an ex post facto punishment. These arguments are forfeited because Little didn’t make them in the circuit court. (¶¶3-4).

What did Little argue in the circuit court? That forfeiture of the gun violated the constitutional prohibition against excessive fines. See State v. Bergquist, 2002 WI App 39, 250 Wis. 2d 792, 641 N.W.2d 179. But he didn’t renew that argument on appeal (except in passing in his reply brief), so the court deems it to be abandoned. (¶¶5-6).

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment