COA: Felony fleeing and resisting arrest are the “same act” for purposes of tolling statute of limitations.
State v. Aman D. Singh, 2025AP424, 6/16/26, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA held that felony fleeing and resisting arrest are the “same act” for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations.
On November 19, 2019, a Hales Corners police officer activated his squad car’s emergency lights when he saw a vehicle stopped in traffic with its engine running. The officer and his partner approached the driver’s side door and found Singh asleep at the wheel. Singh awoke and “slowly accelerated” away from the officers, who returned to their squad car and followed Singh’s vehicle for a “short distance” until he was stopped. The officers saw multiple signs that Singh was intoxicated and he was arrested for OWI. At the time, Singh was on bond for three prior misdemeanor OWI charges and the conditions of his bond prohibited using alcohol or controlled substances. (¶¶ 4-6).
Singh was charged with felony fleeing, three counts of misdemeanor bail jumping, and one count of felony OWI as a 5th or 6th offense. (¶ 6). The State dismissed the OWI charge and Singh pled guilty on February 7, 2023, to misdemeanor resisting arrest in exchange for the State dismissing the felony fleeing count, while the bail jumping charges were dismissed and read in. (¶ 11).
On appeal, Singh argued he was entitled to withdraw his plea because the amended resisting charge was barred by the statute of limitations. A prosecution for a misdemeanor must commence within three years after the offense is committed. Wis. Stat. § 939.74(1). However, the time during which a prosecution was pending against the actor for the same act is not included when computing the limitations period. Wis. Stat. § 939.74(3).
Felony fleeing requires the State to prove the defendant knowingly fled or attempted to elude an officer by increasing the speed of the vehicle. Wis. Stat. § 346.04(3). Resisting an officer requires the State to prove the defendant knowingly resisted an officer by failing to stop the vehicle as promptly as safety reasonably permits. Wis. Stat. § 346.04(2t). The COA determined the original complaint contained sufficient facts to prove both felony fleeing and misdemeanor resisting:
Singh was already stopped with a stopped police vehicle flashing emergency lights behind him and two officers at his window. The act of increasing his speed from a stopped position to drive away from the officers is the same act that was being prosecuted under the initial felony fleeing charge. No additional facts are required to support the misdemeanor resisting charge.
(¶ 20).
Since Singh’s prosecution was pending for the same act when he pled guilty to resisting arrest, the statute of limitations was tolled. (¶ 21).
The COA also rejected Singh’s argument that his motion to dismiss the initial felony fleeing should have been granted because he was traveling at a slow speed. The COA determined that neither the statute nor case law include a minimum speed threshold to establish felony fleeing and it was sufficient that Singh’s vehicle went from a complete stop to a slow speed. (¶ 26).
Finally, Singh argued that his bail jumping charges should have been dismissed outright because the OWI cases on which they were based were dismissed while this case was pending. The COA found, however, that bail jumping “does not require the State to either show that the underlying offense was never dismissed, or, as Singh suggests, was only dismissed for reasons that do not involve the sufficiency of the complaint.” (¶ 30).