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 laws of a foreign state count for the purpose of charging a Wisconsin OWI suspect. He asserts that court supervision is not a conviction under Illinois law.
……
¶7. We conclude that the pertinent language of Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) is unambiguous …. We read “under the law of another jurisdiction” not as delimiting “convictions,” but rather as introducing and pertaining to “that prohibits” and the remainder of the paragraph.
…
¶9. List’s approach would require us to interpret the law of another state whenever an OWI defendant has received a penalty less than a judgment of conviction for a previous offense. ….
¶10. We turn instead to Wisconsin law to determine whether a disposition of court supervision in Illinois is a “conviction” for the purposes of arriving at the correct OWI charge. The traffic code defines “conviction” as
an unvacated adjudication of guilt, or a determination that a person has violated or failed to comply with the law in a court of original jurisdiction or an authorized administrative tribunal, an unvacated forfeiture of property deposited to secure the person’s appearance in court, the payment of a fine or court cost, or violation of a condition of release without the deposit of property, regardless of whether or not the penalty is rebated, suspended, or probated, in this state or any other jurisdiction.
Wis. Stat. § 340.01(9r). In List’s case, his placement under court supervision was a result of a determination that he “violated or failed to comply with the law in a court of original jurisdiction.” Id. The Illinois sentence was therefore a conviction as defined by Wisconsin law, and counts toward the determination of the severity of his penalty.
