State v. Danny M. Kohout
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 12, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals Appeal No. NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and RULE 809.62. Cir. Ct. No. 2005CF5440 2007AP1795-CR STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT I STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. DANNY M. KOHOUT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: DENNIS P. MORONEY, Judge. Affirmed. Before Curley, P.J., Wedemeyer1 and Fine, JJ. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Danny Kohout appeals from the judgment of conviction entered against him, and the order denying his motion for 1 This opinion was circulated and approved before Judge Wedemeyer s death. No. 2007AP1795-CR postconviction relief. He argues that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him. We reject his argument, and affirm the judgment and order.2 ¶2 Kohout was convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, fifth offense. He filed a postconviction motion alleging that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, finding that the motion was patently frivolous. We agree. ¶3 Although Kohout s brief is difficult to comprehend, he does not appear to be attacking the particular statute under which he was convicted, but rather is challenging any statute that does not contain an enacting clause. This court recently addressed the almost identical issue in State v. Weidman, 2007 WI App 258, 306 Wis. 2d 723, 743 N.W.2d 854.3 In Weidman, we concluded that each separate statute does not need to contain an enacting clause. Id., ¶6. For the same reason, we reject Kohout s argument. ¶4 Kohout also raises a number of other arguments, including an incomprehensible argument that he is a natural person, that the statutes are a mental creation of the Revisor of Statutes, and that the circuit court judge violated his oath of office by committing treason when he denied Kohout s motion to dismiss. Because these arguments are either incomprehensible or not supported 2 After the matter had already been submitted to the court on the briefs, the State moved for summary affirmance on the basis of this court s decision in State v. Weidman, 2007 WI App 258, 306 Wis. 2d 723, 743 N.W.2d 854. Because we affirm on the briefs submitted to the court, we deny the State s motion for summary affirmance as unnecessary. 3 In its motion for summary affirmance, the State asserts that Kohout s brief is almost identical to the brief submitted in Weidman. 2 No. 2007AP1795-CR with citation to relevant legal authority, we decline to address them. See State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc., 81 Wis. 2d 555, 564, 261 N.W.2d 147 (1978) ( [A]n appellate court is not a performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played on an appeal. ¦ ). For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment and order of the circuit court. By the Court. Judgment and order affirmed. This opinion will not be published. 809.23(1)(b)5. (2005-06). 3 See WIS. STAT. RULE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
