State v. Brownson

Page 400

527 N.W.2d 400

189 Wis.2d 493

NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES.

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James R. BROWNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 94-0941.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Nov. 9, 1994.

Appeal from a Judgment of the Circuit Court for Winnebago County; Robert A. Haase, Judge.

BROWN

James R. Brownson alleges on appeal that § 110.05(2)(d), STATS., the part of Wisconsin's consumer protection laws requiring start and completion dates in home improvement contracts, violates the Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions pertaining to involuntary servitude. We disagree and affirm.

Brownson was charged, inter alia, with three counts of entering into a home improvement contract without using start and completion dates pursuant to WIS.ADM.CODE § ATCP 110.05(2)(d). He argued before the trial court that the statute violated the Thirteenth Amendment. The trial court disagreed and Brownson then pled no contest. He was placed on three years probation, during which time he is not to engage in any home improvement contracts. Costs and restitution were also ordered. Brownson's appeal contests the constitutionality of the statute anew.

First of all, the issue is waived. It is well established that a plea of guilty or no contest, knowingly and understandingly made, constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and defenses, including claimed violations of constitutional rights. County of Racine v. Smith, 122 Wis.2d 431, 434, 362 N.W.2d 439 (Ct.App.1984).

Even if we were to decide the case on the merits, Brownson would not prevail. Brownson cites State v. Brownson, 157 Wis.2d 404, 413-414, 459 N.W.2d 877 (Ct.App.1990) holding that the State may not criminalize the breach of a labor contract since it is tantamount to compelling an individual to labor against his or his will as part of a remedy of specific performance. The court in that case thus struck down § 110.05(9), 1990, which prohibited a failure to comply with the terms of a home improvement contract. Brownson asserts that this case also deals with complying with the terms of the home improvement contract, albeit a specific term in the contract rather than the contract in general.

We disagree. Brownson was not charged with failing to comply with the terms of the contract. He was charged with failure to obey a...