Cristian M. Loga-Negru v. Patricia Hanson

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
November 18, 2020
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2020AP738 Cir. Ct. No. 2019SC1858

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II

CRISTIAN M. LOGA-NEGRU,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V.

PATRICIA HANSON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ERIC J. GIESE, DANIEL
L. SCHAUER, MARK A. HALEEN AND MAXWELL ZINNEN,

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Racine County:
EUGENE A. GASIORKIEWICZ, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 NEUBAUER, C.J.1 On April 26, 2019, Cristian M. Loga-Negru
filed a small claims replevin action against the Racine County District Attorney

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2017-18).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2020AP738

Patricia Hanson and multiple individuals, seeking return of numerous items seized
following his arrest for several felony offenses and retained by the Mount Pleasant
Police Department. At a hearing at which Hanson appeared to address his
complaint, it was determined that multiple items would be returned to
Loga-Negru, but that others would not, because his criminal appeal was still
pending. We affirm.

¶2 Loga-Negru was charged and convicted of first-degree intentional
homicide of his estranged wife in case No. 14CF1626, after he pled no contest.
He has been sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of supervised
release after thirty years. His criminal case in which he is challenging his
conviction is currently pending on appeal in case No. 19AP1023.

¶3 After Loga-Negru filed his replevin action, the circuit court initially
dismissed the claim, holding that WIS. STAT. § 968.20 governed the disposition of
property seized in Wisconsin, and this was his exclusive remedy for return of the
property.

¶4 Loga-Negru filed a motion for reconsideration. The court
determined in a decision and order dated November 11, 2019, to hold a hearing,
allowing the State to provide evidence for continued retention of the items seized
pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 968.20.

¶5 The hearing was held on January 17, 2020. Loga-Negru was
transported to participate in person at the hearing. Hanson appeared and addressed
each item on the inventory list that Loga-Negru identified in his complaint,
identifying several items that would be returned to Loga-Negru. Hanson also
agreed with Loga-Negru’s request to provide him with numerous items by
providing him with copies, which would be given to his identified representative.

2
No. 2020AP738

However, Hanson explained that the originals of paper items and numerous other
items were to be retained by local law enforcement because
Loga-Negru’s criminal appeal was pending, specifically addressing each item.

¶6 For example, Hanson noted that a cell phone and computer were
retained as they may have evidence of Loga-Negru’s alleged stalking of the
victim. Binoculars found in his car were also potential evidence relating to
Loga-Negru’s stalking. Hanson stated that a pocket knife was to be retained, and
Loga-Negru stated that he had no objection. Hanson’s testimony was undisputed.

¶7 The circuit court determined that the withheld items were
properly retained in the event of a trial resulting from Loga-Negru’s
continued challenge to his conviction. Specifically, the January 17, 2020 small
claims docket entry from which this appeal is taken provides: “The state will
release passport and SSN card, copies of all paperwork, Car (jetta), original
registration and title for car (Jetta), TV, copy of warrant, and wallet are to be sent
to Mr. Early S. [Louis] Jr. Also Mr. [Louis] is to pick up car.” See WIS. STAT.
§ 808.03(1)(b) (appeal is taken from the docket entry in WIS. STAT. ch 799 cases).

¶8 Loga-Negru appeals. While his brief is rambling and difficult to
follow, at its core, he continues to challenge the retention of the remaining items.

¶9 The application of a statute to undisputed facts presents a question of
law we review de novo. State v. Perez, 2001 WI 79, ¶12, 244 Wis. 2d 582, 628
N.W.2d 820. In State v. Jones, 226 Wis. 2d 565, 575, 594 N.W.2d 738 (1999)
(footnote omitted), the court explained:

[WISCONSIN STAT.] § 968.20(1) states that any person
claiming the right to possession of property seized with or
without a search warrant may apply for its return to the
circuit court for the county in which the property was

3
No. 2020AP738

seized. If the right to possession is proved to the court’s
satisfaction, it shall order property, other than contraband,
returned if it is not needed as evidence or all proceedings
have been completed.

¶10 We reject Loga-Negru’s demand for return of the impounded
property, as his challenge to his conviction for first-degree intentional homicide
continues. All proceedings have not been completed. Accordingly, the circuit
court properly denied Loga-Negru’s complaint seeking return of his property.2

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE
809.23(1)(b)4.

2
Loga-Negru raises numerous undeveloped arguments, none of which persuade. For
example, he challenges the legality of the warrant, which is not at issue in this civil small claims
action. He also seeks damages for the diminished value of the items returned. He does not
provide any legal authority which supports his request.

4