On Point: E. Enhancers

State v. James O. Edwards, 2002 WI App 66, PFR filed 2/18/02
For Edwards: Glenn C. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether failure to object to exhibits (uncertified copy of judgment of conviction; DOC fax indicating prior periods of confinement) waived an argument that the state failed to prove Edwards’ repeater status.

Holding: Failure to object to documentation that facially establishes repeater status waives the issue of sufficiency of proof; 

State v. Razzie Watson, Sr., 2002 WI App 247
For Watson: Dennis Schertz

Issue/Holding: A guilty plea suffices to establish a qualifying repeater-enhancement, even though the judgment of conviction on that plea isn’t entered until after commission of the offense being enhanced. ¶¶9-14.

State v. Razzie Watson, Sr., 2002 WI App 247
For Watson: Dennis Schertz

Issue/Holding:

¶5 An admission from a defendant stating, “I am a repeater,” without more, is insufficient to constitute an admission of a prior conviction under WIS. STAT. §973.12(1). As the circuit court indicated in its colloquy, “repeater” and “habitual offender” are legal, not factual terms, and a defendant may not be aware of what he or she is admitting. 

State v. Joseph F. Volk, 2002 WI App 274
For Volk: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison App

Issue: Whether the extended supervision portion of truth-in-sentencing, § 973.01, supports repeater enhancement, § 939.62(1)(b).

Holding: Because specifies that “confinement” may be enhanced, applying the principle that specification works an exclusion of non-enumerated items, the extended supervision portion of a sentence is not subject to repeater enhancement.

State v. Leonard T. Collins, 2002 WI App 177
For Collins: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶2. We agree with Collins that Wis. Stat. § 939.62(2m)(d) requires circuit courts to determine independently whether an out-of-state crime is comparable to a Wisconsin “serious felony,” even if the defendant admits that he or she is a persistent repeater. However, because we can conclude as a matter of law that “second degree murder”

State v. Charles J. Burroughs, 2002 WI App 18
For Burroughs: William F. Mross

Issue/Holding: Burroughs’ prior conviction in Alabama for assault with intent to murder is sufficiently comparable to attempted first degree intentional homicide so as to support exposure to persistent offender sentencing, § 939.62(2m)(c). ¶¶23-27.

State v. Michael A. Sveum,  2002 WI App 105, PFR filed 5/10/02
For Sveum: Ian A.J. Pitz

Issue/Holding: A repeater enhancement applies only to a crime, which is an offense prohibited by state law and punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. Violation of harassment injunction fits this definition and therefore supports repeater enhancement. State v. Carpenter, 179 Wis. 2d 838, 508 N.W.2d 69 (Ct.

State v. Charles J. Burroughs, 2002 WI App 18
For Burroughs: William F. Mross

Issue: Whether the record sufficiently supports Burroughs’ guilty plea on a prior offense supporting his persistent offender status.

Holding: Because Burroughs doesn’t contest the fact that he was represented by counsel when he entered the plea to the prior offense, his right to challenge the plea is barred under State v.

State v. Paul Delao Quiroz, 2002 WI App 52
For Quiroz: Chad G. Kerkman

Issue: Whether the maximum penalty for first-degree reckless endangerment of safety, enhanced by while armed and gang-related provisions, was 13 or 14 years.

Holding:

¶13 … [State v. Pernell, 165 Wis. 2d 651, 656, 478 N.W.2d 297 (Ct. App. 1991)] establishes that when two penalty enhancers are applicable to the same crime,

State v. Lawrence P. Peters, 2001 WI 74, 244 Wis. 2d 470, 628 N.W.2d 797, reversing, 2000 WI App 154, 237 Wis. 2d 741, 615 N.W.2d 655
For Peters: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether Peters may, at his OAR-5th sentencing, collaterally attack his OAR-2d conviction, on the ground of denial of counsel.

Holding:

¶4 We view this case as falling within the right-to-counsel exception to the general rule against collateral attacks on prior convictions.