Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Pro se defendant’s appellate arguments too undeveloped to address

State v. James E. Grant, 2013AP1829-CR & 2013AP1830-CR, District 4, 9/4/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP1829-CR; 2013AP1830-CR

Two of the three arguments made in Grant’s appellate brief were sufficiently stated to survive the state’s motion to strike, but they are ultimately too undeveloped to address under State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992). Moreover, Grant failed to arrange for the production of the transcript of the circuit court’s oral ruling on his postconviction motion, meaning the transcript is assumed to support the circuit court’s decision, State v. McAttee, 2001 WI App 262, ¶5 n.1, 248 Wis. 2d 865, 637 N.W.2d 774.

¶7     It is true that we may make allowances for pro se litigants, and we have done so here by, among other things, extending deadlines, reinstating Grant’s appeals after he initially failed to pay the filing fee, and attempting to decipher all of Grant’s handwriting even though some of it was very difficult to read. When it comes to the merits of a case, however, this court does not create issues or develop arguments for a litigant. State ex rel. Harris v. Smith, 220 Wis. 2d 158, 165, 582 N.W.2d 131 (Ct. App. 1998). “We cannot serve as both advocate and judge.” Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d at 647.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment