On Point blog, page 18 of 19
Enhancer – Construction – Prior Conviction Presumptively Elemental
State v. Jeffrey A. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, affirming 2008 WI App 42
For Warbelton: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶21 …. The legislature has the authority to designate a prior conviction as a penalty enhancer rather than an element of the offense. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 246. Although the legislature is permitted to designate a prior conviction as a penalty enhancer,
Enhanced Penalties — Proof: Prior Need Not Be Part of Appellate Record
State v. Thomas W. Koeppen, 2000 WI App 121, 237 Wis.2d 418, 614 N.W.2d 530
For Koeppen: Richard L. Zaffiro
Issue: Whether the repeater-qualifying convictions were inadequately proved merely because they weren’t made part of the appellate record.
Holding: “Even if the trial court did not include these documents in the appellate record, the documents’ existence at the time of sentencing is not negated because,
Enhancer — § 939.62(2m)(d), Persistent Offender — Life Without Parole — Cruel and Unusual Punishment
State v. David M. Hahn, 2000 WI 118, 238 Wis. 2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528, on certification; clarified on reconsideration, on a different point, 2001 WI 6
For Hahn: Steven G. Bauer
Issue: “(W)hether the persistent repeater penalty enhancer as applied to the defendant violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.” ¶5.
Holding: Imposing a life sentence without possibility of parole,
Enhancer — § 941.29(2m), 2nd-Offense Felon in Possession, Supports Repeater
State v. Calvin E. Gibson, 2000 WI App 207, 238 Wis.2d 547, 618 N.W.2d 248
For Gibson: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶1. The question presented is whether the habitual criminality enhancer may be applied to a conviction for a second offense felony of firearm possession. Calvin E. Gibson, who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, second offense,
Enhancer — § 939.63, Dangerous Weapon Enhancer — Nexus to Predicate Offense
State v. John W. Page, 2000 WI App 267, 240 Wis.2d 276, 622 N.W.2d 285
For Page: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether possession of dangerous weapon enhancer, § 939.63, requires actual use or threat to use the weapon while committing the enhanced offense.
Holding:
Under the correct reading of [State v.] Peete [,185 Wis.
Enhancers — Collateral Attack on, as Part of Sentencing Proceeding
State v. David M. Hahn, 2000 WI 118, 238 Wis. 2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528, clarified on reconsideration, 2001 WI 6, on certification
For Hahn: Steven G. Bauer
Issue: “(W)hether the U.S. Constitution requires that an offender be permitted during an enhanced sentence proceeding predicated on a prior conviction to challenge the prior conviction as unconstitutional because the conviction was allegedly based on a guilty plea that was not knowing,
Enhancers – Jail as Condition of Probation Tolling Time Limit for Repeater
State v. Todd E. Crider, 2000 WI App 84, 234 Wis. 2d 195, 610 N.W.2d 198
For Crider: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether jail time spent as a condition of probation qualifies as “actual confinement serving a criminal sentence,” so as to extend the § 939.62(2) 5-year period within which a prior conviction must fall to support a repeater enhancement.
Holding: Though time served as a condition of probation is generally not a “sentence,”
Enhanced Penalties – Proof: Admission — Sufficiency Under § 973.12(1).
State v. David C. Liebnitz, 231 Wis.2d 272, 603 N.W.2d 208 (1999), on certification
For Liebnitz: Rex R. Anderegg.
Issue: Whether the defendant sufficiently admitted to an alleged repeater allegation so as to justify enhanced sentencing where, although he never disputed the allegation and in fact received the bargained-for sentence, he never distinctly admitted the repeater allegation.
Holding: Because the complaint and information both set forth the details of the repeater allegation along with the enhanced penalty;
Enhanced Penalties — § 939.62(2), Time for Qualifying Offense — Confinement under Hold as Tolling
State v. Tyrone Price, 231 Wis.2d 229, 604 N.W.2d 898 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Price: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue: Whether confinement time spent on parole holds qualifies as “actual confinement serving a criminal sentence” thereby extending the five-year period for a prior, qualifying sentence-enhancement conviction under § 939.62(2).
Holding: Time spent under parole hold qualifies as time spent under a criminal sentence within the meaning of the repeater act:
¶13 Since the expansion of the five-year period is at issue in this case,
Enhancer — Pleading — Charge Made in Information Controls Different Repeater Allegation in Complaint
State v. John J. Thoms, 228 Wis. 2d 868, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Thoms: Steven L. Miller
Issue/Holding: The court reverses a persistent repeater sentence, § 939.62(2m). Thoms was originally charged in the complaint with the standard 10-year sentence enhancement, § 939.62(1)(c)&(2), based on a prior felony theft conviction. However, the information changed the enhancement allegation to persistent offender, § 939.62(2m) – life without parole.