COA affirms traffic judgment over pro se sufficiency challenges
County of Milwaukee v. Kent Austin Williams, 2025AP2110, 6/16/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Kent Austin Williams, pro se, challenges the circuit court’s judgment finding him guilty of speeding on the basis that Milwaukee County did not present sufficient evidence to support the violation. COA disagrees and affirms.
Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Deputy Anthony Machowski issued Williams a citation for exceeding the speed limit in a 55-mile-per-hour zone by 25 to 29 mph. Williams represented himself at a bench trial on the alleged violation. (¶2). The county called Machowski, who testified that he “paced” Williams’s car by following him and matching his pace for over a mile, relying on the squad car’s certified speedometer, but admitted that there were cars between them while he was pacing Williams. Machowski estimated Williams’s speed at 80 mph in a 55 mph construction zone, giving Williams “the benefit of the doubt.” (¶¶3-4). The citation listed WIS. STAT. § 346.57(4)(h), which Machowski believed proscribed speeding in a 55 mph zone, and listed “N” in the field for “minor children” although Machowski testified that Williams had a child in the car. (¶6). Williams cross-examined Machowski as to the dash camera footage but did not introduce it. (¶7).
The circuit court found Williams guilty, relying on Machowski’s testimony, which it found credible. (¶10). On appeal, Williams argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove a violation of § 346.57(4)(h), and that he was deprived of notice and the ability to present a defense because the citation failed to properly state the ordinance violated. (¶12). Subsection (4)(h) provides that “[i]n the absence of any other fixed limits or the posting of limits as required or authorized by law,” no person shall drive a vehicle in excess of “55 miles per hour.” (¶15).
As to his sufficiency challenge, Williams asserts that he was driving in a posted 55 mile-per-hour zone, making sub. (4)(h) inapplicable. He relies on dash camera footage and his own statements that the roadway had a posted speed limit, but neither was admitted as evidence. (¶16). COA rejects this argument because there is no evidence in the record that the speed limit was posted. (¶17). He also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support finding him guilty of violating the speed limit by 25 mph or more. Williams points to Machowski’s testimony that he did not calibrate his squad’s speedometer himself and that there were cars between them. COA rejects this argument because Williams fails to demonstrate that the court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that the County’s evidence was “patently incredible.” (¶¶18-21).
COA also rejects Williams’s claim that the citation’s errors undermine its reliability and impaired his ability to present a defense. The court reasons that Williams didn’t establish the meaning or relevance of the “N” and is are not persuaded this apparent error undermines the citation’s reliability or makes the circuit court’s findings and inferences unreasonable. (¶24). Next, the citation accurately described the violation despite possibly referencing the incorrect statute and it provided notice and the opportunity to prepare a defense because Williams does not dispute that 55 mph was the applicable speed limit whether or not it was posted. (¶25).