On Point: 12. Double Jeopardy, 5th Am.

State v. Frank James Burt, 2000 WI App 126, 237 Wis. 2d 610, 614 N.W.2d 42
For Burt: Michael P. Jakus

Issue: Whether the trial court violated double jeopardy by amending sentence the same day of imposition, before judgment of conviction had been entered, after realizing it had mistakenly said “concurrent” instead of “consecutive.”

Holding: “The double jeopardy clauses did not attach a degree of finality to Burt’s original sentence that prevented the trial court from correcting its error later in the same day,”

State v. John P. Krueger, 224 Wis.2d 59, 588 N.W.2d 921 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Krueger: Gary S. Cirilli

Holding: The court reaffirms the holding of State v. Braunsdorf, 98 Wis.2d 569, 297 N.W.2d 808 (1980) that prior to attachment of jeopardy trial courts don’t possess the authority to dismiss a charge with prejudice except for denial of speedy trial.

State v. Jamerrel Everett, 231 Wis.2d 616, 605 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Everett: Timothy T. Kay; Michael Patrick Cotter

Issue: Whether the prosecution constituted double jeopardy because the defendant had been disciplined for the same conduct by the juvenile institution.

Holding: Although prison discipline may carry punitive aspects, its principal purposes are institutional order and rehabilitation, State v. Fonder, 162 Wis.

State v. Roger L. Warren, 229 Wis. 2d 172, 599 N.W.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Warren: Daniel F. Snyder

Holding: Warren’s perjured testimony at a single hearing dealing with a single general subject supports multiple perjury counts, because each charge dealt with different perjured details and is therefore “different in fact” if not law. In other words, “different evidence is required to establish that Warren responded falsely to the questions upon which”

State v. Daniel Anderson, 219 Wis.2d 739, 580 N.W.2d 329 (1998), reversing State v. Anderson, 214 Wis. 2d 126, 570 N.W.2d 872 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Anderson: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether violating different conditions of a single bond supports multiple bail jumping counts.

Holding: Anderson, released on an otherwise unrelated case, was ordered as a condition of bail not to drink or have contact with the victim.

State v. Prokopios G. Vassos, 218 Wis.2d 330, 579 N.W.2d 35 (1998), on certification
For Vassos: Edmund C. Carns

Holding: Successive prosecution for misdemeanor battery (§ 940.19(1)), following acquittal of felony battery (§ 940.19(3)) arising from same incident, wasn’t barred by double jeopardy. Successive prosecutions are barred under § 939.71 when the subsequent charge is the “same” offense under the “elements-only” test. That test isn’t met here,

State v. Lettice (II), 221 Wis. 2d 69, 585 N.W.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1998)
(prior history: State v. John A. Lettice (I), 205 Wis. 2d 347, 556 N.W.2d 376 (Ct. App. 1996); subsequent history: BAPR v. Steven M. Lucareli, 2000 WI 55)
For Lettice: John Allan Pray, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

We conclude that (1) Lettice is not estopped from seeking a dismissal based on double jeopardy;