Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
DATED AND FILED                                                                       This opinion is subject to further editing.   If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
October 2, 2003
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Cornelia G. Clark                                                                                                                                     petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals                                                                                                                             Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
                                                                                                                                                      and RULE 809.62.
                                                                                                                                                      Cir. Ct. No.   97-CT-13
Appeal No.                                                                            02-3225-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                                                                    IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                                                                                      DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
DERWIN W. PETTIT,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Richland County:
EDWARD E. LEINEWEBER, Judge.   Affirmed.
¶1                                                                                    HIGGINBOTHAM, J.1    Derwin W. Pettit appeals from a judgment
of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), fifth offense.
Pettit was originally charged with OWI, third offense, and operating a motor
1  This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2) (c).




No.   02-3225-CR
vehicle  with  a  prohibited  blood  alcohol  concentration                                 (PAC),  third  offense.
However,  while  this  case  was  pending,  he  accumulated  two  more  OWI
convictions in other counties.   In this case, he was then convicted of OWI, fifth
offense.  Pettit argues that the intervening convictions should not have changed the
grade of the present offenses and that he should have been sentenced for an OWI,
third offense.   We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction.
FACTS
¶2                                                                                          On April 9, 1997 Pettit was charged with OWI, third offense, PAC,
third offense and operating a motor vehicle after revocation.   While this case was
pending, he was twice more convicted of OWI, in Grant County on July 22, 2000
and on June 30, 2001.   On July 17, 2002 Pettit pled no contest to the charge but
the parties briefed the issue of whether the offense was a third or fifth offense.
After a hearing, the circuit court concluded that “all applicable law was on the
books as of the acts of driving on March, 1997.   The defendant’s additional acts
resulting  in  two  more  convictions  constituted  essentially  part  of  an  ongoing
offense which was not completed until the subsequent acts of driving result in the
two additional convictions; therefore, the court holds that this is a fifth offense.”
Pettit  was  then  convicted  of  and  sentenced  as  an  OWI,  fifth  offense.    Pettit
appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶3                                                                                          Pettit argues that because he was originally charged with OWI, third
offense, he must be convicted of OWI, third offense, and the intervening two
convictions are immaterial.   Case law and the plain language of the OWI statutes
belie this contention.
2




No.   02-3225-CR
¶4                                                                                     WISCONSIN  STAT.                                                                       § 346.63   (2001-02)2  prohibits   (1)  driving  or
operating a motor vehicle (2) while under the influence of an intoxicant.   State v.
McAllister, 107 Wis. 2d 532, 535, 319 N.W.2d 865 (1982).   It is the conduct of
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant which is
prohibited  by                                                                         § 346.63(1).    Id.    Nothing  more  need  be  proven  to  sustain  a
judgment of conviction against a motorist.   Id.
¶5                                                                                     WISCONSIN STAT. § 346.65 provides the penalties for violating WIS.
STAT. § 346.63(1).   Section 346.65(2) states, in relevant part:
(2) Any person violating s. 346.63 (1):
(a) Shall forfeit not less than  $150 nor more than  $300,
except as provided in pars. (b) to (f).
(b) Except as provided in par. (f), shall be fined not less
than $350 nor more than $1,100 and imprisoned for not less
than  5  days  nor  more  than  6  months  if  the  number  of
convictions under ss. 940.09 (1) and 940.25 in the person’s
lifetime, plus the total number of suspensions, revocations
and other convictions counted under s. 343.307 (1) within a
10-year   period,   equals                                                             2,   except   that   suspensions,
revocations or convictions arising out of the same incident
or occurrence shall be counted as one.
(c) Except as provided in pars. (f) and (g), shall be fined not
less than $600 nor more than $2,000 and imprisoned for not
less than 30 days nor more than one year in the county jail
if  the  number  of  convictions  under  ss.                                           940.09                                                                                 (1)  and
940.25 in the person’s lifetime, plus the total number of
suspensions,  revocations  and  other  convictions  counted
under  s.  343.307  (1),  equals  3,  except  that  suspensions,
revocations or convictions arising out of the same incident
or occurrence shall be counted as one.
(d) Except as provided in pars. (f) and (g), shall be fined
not less than $600 nor more than $2,000 and imprisoned for
2
                                                                                       All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise
noted.
3




No.   02-3225-CR
not less than 60 days nor more than one year in the county
jail if the number of convictions under ss. 940.09 (1) and
940.25 in the person’s lifetime, plus the total number of
suspensions,  revocations  and  other  convictions  counted
under  s.  343.307  (1),  equals  4,  except  that  suspensions,
revocations or convictions arising out of the same incident
or occurrence shall be counted as one.
(e) Except as provided in pars. (f) and (g), is guilty of a
Class H felony and shall be fined not less than $600 and
imprisoned for not less than  6 months if the number of
convictions under ss. 940.09 (1) and 940.25 in the person’s
lifetime, plus the total number of suspensions, revocations
and other convictions counted under s. 343.307 (1), equals
5  or  more,  except  that  suspensions,  revocations  or
convictions arising out of the same incident or occurrence
shall be counted as one.
(Emphasis added.)    Repeated violations of  § 346.63 are subject to increasingly
harsher  penalties  under                                                                § 346.65(2).    McAllister,  107  Wis.  2d  at  535.    This
graduated penalty structure is nothing more than a penalty enhancer similar, but
not identical to, a repeater statute which does not in any way alter the nature of the
substantive offense.   Id.
¶6                                                                                       However,  in  contrast  to  the  general  repeater  provisions  of  WIS.
STAT. § 939.62, the specific language of  § 346.65(2) does not require the prior
conviction occur before the commission of the new offense.   State v. Banks, 105
Wis.  2d  32,  46,  313 N.W.2d  67  (1981).    Rather, they simply require criminal
penalties based upon more than one drunken driving conviction within a five-year
period at the time of sentencing, regardless of the order in which the convictions
were entered.    Id. at  47.                                                             “The absence of any language in sec.  346.65(2)  ...
requiring  a  prior  conviction  before  the  commission  of  a  [subsequent]  offense
supports our conclusion that the criminal penalties of this statute apply where there
have been” five or more convictions for OWI during a five-year period “regardless
of  the order in which  the offenses were committed and the convictions were
4




No.   02-3225-CR
entered.”   Id. at 47-48.   Pettit was properly sentenced under the penalty provisions
for OWI, fifth offense.   We affirm the judgment of conviction.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.  See WIS. STAT. § 809.23(1)(b)4.
5

Download 5945.pdf

Wisconsin Law