State v. Jeffrey Townsend
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2007 WI 31 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 2003AP429-CR COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jeffrey Townsend, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 2006 WI App 177 Reported at: ___ Wis. 2d ___, 722 N.W.2d 753 (Ct. App. 2006 Published) OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: March 15, 2007 February 14, 2007 Circuit Milwaukee Jeffrey A.Conen JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs and oral argument by Ellen Henak, assistant state public defender. For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by William L. Gansner, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. 2007 WI 31 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2003AP429-CR (L.C. No. 2001CF5345) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, FILED MAR 15, 2007 v. Jeffrey Townsend, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Supreme Court REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Dismissed as improvidently granted. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Jeffrey Townsend petitioned this court for review of a court of appeals decision State v. Townsend, 2006 WI App 177, __ Wis. 2d __, 722 N.W.2d 753, which affirmed a circuit court order denying his motion seeking to dismiss his judgment of conviction on the ground that the State of Illinois violated the statutory procedures of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). granted the By order dated October 10, 2006, this court petition for review to consider the appropriate remedy for the State of Illinois' violation of the IAD. argument in this case was conducted on February 14, 2007. Oral No. ¶2 2003AP429-CR At the oral argument, counsel for the parties informed the court that they believed the petitioner had absconded from his supervision on parole on the conviction and sentence under review. The court directed the parties to confirm Townsend's status and to advise the court of the effect of that status on his pending appeal. The parties confirmed that Townsend has absconded parole from his supervision. Counsel for the petitioner urged the court to retain the matter. ¶3 It is within the discretion of the court to refuse to decide a criminal appeal if the defendant cannot be made to respond to the court's judgment. U.S. 97 (1876). See Smith v. United States, 94 Having considered the matter, the court will dismiss the petition for review as improvidently granted. By the Court. The review of the decision of the Court of Appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted. 2 No. 1 2003AP429-CR
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.
