State v. Verhagen, State v. Nickles, State v. Van Asten, and State v. Bell, 2013 WI App 16; consolidated court of appeals decision; case activity: Verhagen; Nickles; Van Asten; and Bell OWI – Use of first offense to enhance penalty In a prosecution for a second or subsequent OWI offense, New Jersey v. Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)… Read more
5. Proof
Question Presented: Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), should be overruled. Docket Lower court opinion (U.S. v. Alleyne, CTA4 No. 11-4208, 12/15/11 (unpublished)) Scotusblog page Alleyne was convicted by a jury of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 2. Though… Read more
State v. Lisa M. Arentz, 2011AP2307-CR / State v. Eric R. Hendricks, 2012AP243-CR, District 2, 9/5/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity (Arentz; Hendricks) Criminal OWI prosecution is premised on, and a resulting sentence enhanced by, a prior civil-forfeiture OWI conviction (which does not itself require unanimous jury verdict upon proof beyond reasonable doubt). Arentz… Read more
State v. Roshawn Smith, 2012 WI 91, reversing in part, affirming in part unpublished decision; case activity Standard of Review: Sufficiency of Evidence ¶29 We understand Smith’s central argument regarding the standard of review on the evidentiary question to be summed up in the proposition that a jury verdict of guilt[9] must be reversed on appeal if “[t]he inferences that… Read more
Southern Union Company v. United States, USSC No. 11-94, 6/21/12, reversing 630 F.3d 17 (1st Cir 2010) Criminal fines, no less than length of imprisonment, come within the “Apprendi” doctrine, such that a fine beyond the maximum statutory amount must be based on facts decided by the jury. Southern Union was tried for violating environmental laws carrying a fine of… Read more
State v. Jeffrey A. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, affirming 2008 WI App 42 For Warbelton: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Evidence related to a penalty enhancer (such as a prior conviction in support of habitual criminality) is relevant only to sentence and “must be withheld from the jury’s knowledge,” ¶19, quoting Mulkovich v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 464… Read more
State v. Shane P. Kashney, 2008 WI App 164 For Kashney: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: While State v. Patrick A. Saunders, 2002 WI 107 limits proof of a repeater enhancement to the “post-trial” setting, that limitation is satisfied if the State submits the proof after verdict (and before the court has pronounced judgment). ¶1… Read more
State v. Jamale A. Bonds, 2006 WI 83, reversing unpublished decision For Bonds: Jeremy C. Perri, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Failure to object to the manner of proving a repeater allegation (via CCAP) did not constitute waiver of an objection that the proof was insufficient: ¶51 The State contends that we concluded in Saunders that an… Read more
