≡ Menu

E. Enhancers

State v. Thomas A. Mikulance, 2006 WI App 69 Pro se Issue/Holding: A “narrow” exception to the serial litigation bar of § 974.06(4) and State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994) is established by State v. Flowers, 221 Wis. 2d 20, 27, 586 N.W.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1998), which “applies… 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 }

Enhancer — TIS-I

State v. Kent Kleven, 2005 WI App 66 For Kleven: Roberta A. Heckes Issue/Holding: Where sentencing includes multiple enhancers, the court may identify the amount of confinement attributable to each enhancer, without violating the rule that an enhancer doesn’t support a separate sentence. ¶¶16-18. (The court adds, however, ¶18 n. 4, that the “better practice” is to… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Enhancer — Allocation

State v. Kent Kleven, 2005 WI App 66 For Kleven: Roberta A. Heckes Issue/Holding: ¶14. We conclude that, provided the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment established for the base offense, a court’s remarks attributing a portion of the sentence to an applicable enhancer does not constitute grounds to vacate that portion of… 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State v. Michael D. Jackson, 2004 WI 29, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals For Jackson: Joseph E. Schubert Issue: Whether penalty enhancement of a TIS-I sentence, § 973.01(2) (1997-98), applies to the confinement portion alone, or to the total term of imprisonment (including extended supervision), of a bifurcated sentence. Holding: ¶17. The key to understanding the applicability of… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Michael D. Jackson, 2004 WI 29, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals For Jackson: Joseph E. Schubert Issue/Holding: ¶42 Applying the rule of lenity, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(b)6 should be read together with Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(c) in calculation of the maximum term of confinement for unclassified felonies with penalty enhancers under TIS-I. We apply the… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Michael D. Lewis, 2004 WI App 211 For Lewis: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: Sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, as persistent repeater due to prior conviction for sexual assault of a child, on a current conviction for child enticement isn’t cruel / unusual punishment under the 8th amendment. ¶¶16-18.  … Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS