On Point: E. Enhancers

State v. Jeremy J. Hanson, 2001 WI 70, 244 Wis. 2d 405, 628 N.W.2d 759, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Hanson: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether a guilty or no contest plea waives the right to challenge the defendant’s status as an habitual traffic offender, and the right to challenge the HTO sentencing penalty as unauthorized.

Holding:

¶21. Section 973.13 requires Wisconsin courts to declare a sentence void ‘[i]n any case where the court imposes a maximum penalty in excess of that authorized by law.’

State v. Joel O. Peterson, 2001 WI App 220, PFR filed 9/21/01
For Peterson: William E. Schmaal

Issue: Whether the charge may be amended to include a repeater allegation, otherwise untimely under § 973.12(1), if accomplished as part of a plea bargain.

Holding:

¶24 … (A)llowing a defendant to agree to amend an information to add repeater allegations as part of an agreement to plead guilty or no contest is consistent with the goal of providing the defendant all the information about the potential punishment at the time he or she pleads guilty or no contest.

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,

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,

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,

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,

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.

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,

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,”

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;