State v. Markola I. Williams

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT II
October 21, 2026
To:
Hon. Carey J. Reed
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Angela A.P. Linderud
Clerk of Circuit Court
Manitowoc County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
Sarah Elyse Belair
Electronic Notice
Leah Gaworek
Electronic Notice
Debra R. Mancoske
Electronic Notice
Markola I. Williams
Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2025AP1795 State of Wisconsin v. Markola I. Williams (L.C. #2020PA78PJ)
Before Gundrum, Grogan, and LoCoco, JJ.
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Markola I. Williams, pro se, appeals from a circuit court order granting Andrea R.
Everett’s motion to reinstate child support, denying Williams’ motion to deny child support, and
ordering Williams to pay child support in this paternity action. Based upon our review of the
briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary
disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2023-24).1 We affirm.
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2025AP1795
2
In his appellate briefing, Williams raises numerous claims of error by the circuit court,
including: (1) the court “modif[ied] support without alleging or proving a substantial change in
circumstances”; (2) the court modified support without financial disclosure statements from the
parties, in violation of WIS. STAT. § 767.127; (3) “the court relied on an unproven claim of state
assistance without verifying it”; (4) the court accepted a motion to modify child support that did
not contain any allegations but attached a prior motion as an exhibit; (5) the court “modif[ied]
support within three years [of a prior modification] without a showing of change”; and
(6) judicial bias and “procedural shortcutting.” (Formatting altered.) Right out of the gate, we
must affirm the circuit court, as it is an appellant’s burden to show that the circuit court erred, see
Gaethke v. Pozder, 2017 WI App 38, ¶36, 376 Wis. 2d 448, 899 N.W.2d 381, and Williams fails
to come close to meeting that burden.
Here, Williams’ brief-in-chief lacks anything approaching developed arguments as to
how the circuit court may have erred. While his reply brief is more robust, an appellant cannot
“lie in wait” by filing a meager brief-in-chief only to beef up his position in his reply brief, when
the respondent has no opportunity to respond to the new arguments the appellant raises. See
Northern States Power Co. v. National Gas Co., 2000 WI App 30, ¶21 n.6, 232 Wis. 2d 541,
606 N.W.2d 613 (“[W]e [do not] consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief to
which the respondent does not have the opportunity to respond.”). We do not consider
undeveloped arguments in the first instance. Clean Wis., Inc. v. PSC, 2005 WI 93, ¶180 n.40,
282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768. But, even more fundamental than that, Williams cannot
show that the circuit court erred without developing legal arguments to that effect, and “we will

No. 2025AP1795
3
not abandon our neutrality to develop arguments” for a party. See Industrial Risk Insurers v.
American Eng’g Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, ¶25, 318 Wis. 2d 148, 769 N.W.2d 82.2
Williams appeals from an order entered by the circuit court on August 6, 2025, ordering
him to pay child support. That order references and follows from a hearing before the court on
July 15, 2025. Critically, the record contains no transcripts of any proceedings before the circuit
court since 2024. While Williams indicates in his statement on transcript that “[a] transcript is
not necessary for prosecution of this appeal,” he is incorrect.
Williams’ appeal turns on whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion
when it modified child support. See Ladwig v. Ladwig, 2010 WI App 78, ¶15, 325 Wis. 2d 497,
785 N.W.2d 664 (“[C]hild support determinations are entrusted to the circuit court and are not
disturbed on review unless there has been an erroneous exercise of discretion. We will uphold
the circuit court’s discretionary decision if the court ‘examined the relevant facts, applied a
proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a
reasonable judge could reach.’” (citations omitted)). The court’s August 6, 2025 order itself
does not include the court’s reasoning for the modification. As a result, it is essential that we
have the transcript of the July 15, 2025 hearing to determine if the circuit court erroneously
2 We further note that in violation of WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(d) and (e), Williams fails to
cite to the record in support of the vast majority of the facts included in his statement of facts and relied
on to support his arguments. See Useni v. Boudron, 2003 WI App 98, ¶1 n.2, 264 Wis. 2d 783, 662
N.W.2d 672 (“An appellate court is improperly burdened where briefs fail to consistently and accurately
cite to the record.”); Madely v. RadioShack Corp., 2007 WI App 244, ¶14 n.7, 306 Wis. 2d 312, 742
N.W.2d 559 (stating that “we have no duty to scour the record to review arguments unaccompanied by
adequate record citations”). Although Williams is representing himself in this appeal, his briefs must still
comply with the appellate rules. See Waushara County v. Graf, 166 Wis. 2d 442, 452, 480 N.W.2d 16
(1992) (“The right to self-representation is ‘[not] a license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural
and substantive law.’” (alteration in original; citation omitted)).

No. 2025AP1795
4
exercised its discretion. By failing to include the transcript, Williams simply cannot meet his
burden to show us that the court so erred. “It is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure
completion of the appellate record and ‘when an appellate record is incomplete in connection
with an issue raised by the appellant, we must assume that the missing material supports the
[circuit] court’s ruling.’” State v. McAttee, 2001 WI App 262, ¶5 n.1, 248 Wis. 2d 865, 637
N.W.2d 774 (citation omitted). See Pozder, 376 Wis. 2d 448, ¶36 (“[An appellant is] unable to
demonstrate the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion where the court’s reasons for
exercising its discretion as it did are not included in the record.”); see also Jocius v. Jocius, 218
Wis. 2d 103, 119, 580 N.W.2d 708 (Ct. App. 1998) (declining to address whether the court erred
in denying appellant physical placement rights “because in order to determine whether the
[circuit] court erroneously exercised its discretion with respect to this issue, we must be able to
examine a full transcript of the proceedings. [Appellant], however, has failed to provide us with
the transcript”).
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the order of the circuit court is summarily affirmed. See WIS.
STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals