≡ Menu

5. Habitual Offender

State v. Keith S. Krause, 2006 WI App 43 For Krause: Roger G. Merry Issue/Holding: Because collateral attack on a prior conviction used as a sentencing enhancer is limited to denial of counsel, and because the right to counsel does not attach to a civil proceeding, a refusal revocation is not subject to collateral attack on… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Alan J. Ernst, 2005 WI 107, on certification For Ernst: Jeffrey W. Jensen Issue1: Whether violation of the standards mandated by State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194 ¶24, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997) for valid waiver of counsel supports a collateral attack on a prior conviction. Holding1: ¶25      … For there to be a valid collateral… Read more

{ 0 comments }

OWI – Penalty Provision – Timing of Priors

State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05 For Matke: James B. Connell Issue: Whether the number of prior OWI convictions used for penalty enhancement, § 346.65(2), is determined as of date offense is committed or date of sentencing for offense. Holding: ¶5. How and when to count prior OMVWI convictions for purposes of penalty… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05 For Matke: James B. Connell Issue/Holding: ¶16. Matke also contends that the trial court’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2), which is now ours as well, violates due process because it permits the court to sentence him for a sixth OMVWI without requiring the State to… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Arthur C. List, 2004 WI App 230, PFR filed 12/22/04 For List: Joseph L. Polito Issue: Whether an Illinois OWI charge resulting in court supervision is a “conviction” within the meaning of § 343.307(1)(d). Holding: ¶5. List contends that under Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) only OWI offenses that result in formal conviction as defined by the… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Kevin J. Van Riper, 2003 WI App 237 For Van Riper: Anthony L. O’Malley Issue/Holding: ¶13. Thus, the cumulative effect of Wideman and Spaeth is as follows: (1) the proof requirements of Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1), the repeater statute in the criminal code, do not apply in OWI prosecutions (Wideman); and (2) a DOT teletype is competent… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Richard W. Delaney, 2003 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision For Delaney: Joseph R. Cincotta Issue/Holding: ¶1 … Specifically, Delaney asks this court to determine whether Wis. Stat. § 939.62 (1999-2000) was properly applied to his already enhanced OWI offense under Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(c), based on the existence of a past non-OWI offense, so as to enhance… Read more

{ 0 comments }

OAR/OAS – Rescission of HTO Status

State v. Jeremy J. Hanson, 2001 WI 70, 628 N.W.2d 759 For Hanson: James B. Connell Issue: Whether DOT rescission of a defendant’s HTO status under § 351.09 “relates back” to the date of the charged offense so as to nullify that HTO classification and render him or her ineligible for enhanced sentencing. Holding: ¶32. Given… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS