On Point blog, page 2 of 2
Multiplicity — conviction for inchoate crime of conspiracy and completed crime under § 939.72(2). Constitutional right to speedy trial. Prosecutorial misconduct — failing to disclose sentencing consideration for a state’s witness
State v. Michael Lock, 2013 WI App 80; case activity
Multiplicity — conviction for conspiracy and for completed crime under § 939.72(2)
Lock was convicted of conspiracy to solicit prostitutes and conspiracy to pander between 1998 and 2003. Based on conduct in four specific months in 2002, he was also convicted of four counts of soliciting prostitutes as a party to the crime and four counts of pandering as party to the crime.
OWI – reopening case improperly treated as a first offense
State v. James A. Krahn, 2012AP1898-CR, District 2, 1/30/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Motion to dismiss second-offense OWI charge was properly denied, where the charge resulted from the state’s successful motion to reopen a conviction for a first offense that had been entered a few weeks after a conviction in another case that was also treated as a first offense:
¶6 Wisconsin trial courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction over second or subsequent drunk driving offenses tried as first offenses contrary to Wis.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity, Generally
State v. Alvin M. Moore, 2006 WI App 61, PFR filed 3/21/06
For Moore: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶15 Charges are multiplicitous if they charge a single criminal offense in more than one count. State v. Grayson, 172 Wis. 2d 156, 159, 493 N.W.2d 23 (1992). Claims of multiplicity are analyzed using a two-prong test that requires examination of: (1) “whether the charged offenses are identical in law and fact;” and (2) if they are not,
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Multiple Punishments, Single Prosecution, In General
State v. Jimmie Davison, 2003 WI 89, reversing 2002 WI App 109, 235 Wis. 2d 715, 647 N.W.2d 390
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School, Criminal Appeals Project
Issue/Holding:
¶32. In sum, we conclude that the imposition of cumulative punishments from different statutes in a single prosecution for “the same offense” violates double jeopardy when the cumulative punishments are not intended by the legislature.
Plea Bargains — Remedy for Multiplicitous Counts
State v. Robert S. Robinson, 2002 WI 9, on certification
For Robinson: Leonard D. Kachinsky
Issue/Holding:
¶2. The question of law raised on appeal is what is the appropriate remedy when an accused is convicted on the basis of a negotiated plea agreement and the counts later are determined to be multiplicitous, violating the accused’s state and federal constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy? ….
¶3.