On Point: a. Burglary

State v. Roman T. Wise, 2021 WI App 87; case activity (including briefs)

Wise was convicted of 4 counts of fleeing or eluding an officer under §346.04(3). He claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of 3 of his 4 charges on the grounds that they were multiplicitous. The court of appeals held that the charges were not multiplicitous because each one required proof of a different element or fact. Thus, the circuit court appropriately denied Wise’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim without a hearing.

United States v. Dennis Franklin and Shane Sahm, 2019 WI 64, 6/6/19, answering a question certified by the Seventh Circuit; case activity (including briefs)

For state practitioners, the most interesting thing about Franklin is that it happened at all. Certified questions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court are rare, and a certified question presented in a federal criminal case regarding a matter of state criminal law is unheard of.

State v. Shawn A. Beasley, 2004 WI App 42, PFR filed 3/26/04
For Beasley: Robert Ruth

Issue: Whether charges and convictions for burglary while armed (§ 943.10(2)(a)) and burglary while committing battery (§ 943.10(2)(d)) are multiplicitous.

Holding:

¶5. We reject Beasley’s challenge for two reasons. First, the subsections of Wis. Stat. § 943.10(2) do not define penalty enhancers, they define distinct crimes.