≡ Menu

a. Apprendi

State v. Verhagen, State v. Nickles,  State v. Van Asten, and State v. Bell, 2013 WI App 16; consolidated court of appeals decision; case activity: Verhagen; Nickles; Van Asten; and Bell OWI – Use of first offense to enhance penalty In a prosecution for a second or subsequent OWI offense, New Jersey v. Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Question Presented: Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), should be overruled. Docket Lower court opinion (U.S. v. Alleyne, CTA4 No. 11-4208, 12/15/11 (unpublished)) Scotusblog page Alleyne was convicted by a jury of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 2. Though… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Lisa M. Arentz, 2011AP2307-CR / State v. Eric R. Hendricks, 2012AP243-CR, District 2, 9/5/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity (Arentz; Hendricks) Criminal OWI prosecution is premised on, and a resulting sentence enhanced by, a prior civil-forfeiture OWI conviction (which does not itself require unanimous jury verdict upon proof beyond reasonable doubt). Arentz… Read more

{ 1 comment }

State v. Roshawn Smith, 2012 WI 91, reversing in part, affirming in part unpublished decision; case activity Standard of Review: Sufficiency of Evidence  ¶29  We understand Smith’s central argument regarding the standard of review on the evidentiary question to be summed up in the proposition that a jury verdict of guilt[9] must be reversed on appeal if “[t]he inferences that… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Southern Union Company v. United States, USSC No. 11-94, 6/21/12, reversing 630 F.3d 17 (1st Cir 2010) Criminal fines, no less than length of imprisonment, come within the “Apprendi” doctrine, such that a fine beyond the maximum statutory amount must be based on facts decided by the jury. Southern Union was tried for violating environmental laws carrying a fine of… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05 For Matke: James B. Connell Issue/Holding: ¶16. Matke also contends that the trial court’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2), which is now ours as well, violates due process because it permits the court to sentence him for a sixth OMVWI without requiring the State to… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Patrick A. Saunders, 2002 WI 107, reconsideration denied, 2002 WI 119, reversing unpublished opinion For Saunders: Beth Ermatinger Hanan Issue: Whether an uncertified copy of the prior judgment of conviction may serve as part of the proof requirement of a repeater allegation that is not personally admitted by the defendant. Holding: In the absence of the defendant’s… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS