Back in 2003, Poirier was fined $1,184 for an OWI conviction. He didn’t pay, so a judgment was entered against him. In 2017 the circuit court entered an order assigning income from his prison account to pay the judgment. He objects to the assignment order, but to no avail, due in large part to missteps common to pro se litigants.
His first argument was that the judge who imposed the fine (and has since retired) declared, at a sentencing hearing in a different case, that the fine in this case was satisfied. But Poirier failed to get the transcript of that hearing into the record, so the court of appeals assumes the missing transcript supports the successor judge’s finding that the original judge didn’t do as Poirier claims. Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 26-27, 496 N.W.2d 226 (Ct. App. 1993). (¶¶4-6).
The state put a partial transcript in the appendix to its brief, but the court of appeals reminds the state it cannot consider material in an appendix but not in the record. (¶6 n.3).
Poirier also fails to respond to the state’s primary argument: That the assignment order was proper under § 973.05(4)(b). The failure to respond is taken as a concession the argument is correct. (¶7). His remaining arguments fail because they rely on inapplicable statutes, assert a misguided ex post facto claim, are undeveloped, or made for the first time on appeal. (¶¶8-11).