Heinrich moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that his bail-jumping charges lacked a factual basis and were multiplicitous. His motion and subsequent appeal failed.
In a prior criminal case, the circuit court issued a bond that prohibited Heinrich from committing new crimes. After he was released from custody in that case, he committed three new crimes, which he argued automatically forfeited his bail. So, he argued, when he then committed the additional crimes at issue in this appeal, he did not violate the bond from the prior case, because it was no longer in effect.
Heinrich lost because the circuit court never actually entered an order declaring bail forfeited, per §969.13(1). Further, an order forfeiting bail does not nullify a bond. The could of appeals said that they are not the same thing. See §967.02(1h) and §969.001(1). And Heinrich’s interpretation would mean that defendant’s could nullify the conditions of a bond by violating those conditions. Opinion, ¶¶9-11.
The also court of appeals rejected Heinrich’s argument that the 3 bail jumping charges should have been charged as a single count because they were based on a single bond, a single bail condition, and a single criminal episode. The court held that the facts needed to prove the underlying charges of theft, possession of a weapon, and possession of drug paraphernalia are significantly different. It further noted that SCOW has held that two charges of bail jumping based on two violations of the same bond is not multiplicitous. See State v. Anderson, 219 Wis. 2d 739, 750, 580 N.W.2d 329 (1998). Opinion, ¶¶15-17.