Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND RELEASED
NOTICE
December 21, 1995
A party may file with the Supreme Court                                            This opinion is subject to further editing.
a petition to review an adverse decision                                           If  published,  the  official  version  will
by the Court of Appeals.  See § 808.10 and                                         appear  in  the  bound  volume  of  the
RULE 809.62(1), STATS.                                                             Official Reports.
No.   94-3244
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                 IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                   DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSE M. ALDAZABAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County:
JACK F. AULIK, Judge.  Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J., Gartzke, P.J., and Vergeront, J.
PER CURIAM.    Jose Aldazabal appeals from an order denying his
motion  for postconviction  relief.    The  issue  is whether Aldazabal's double
jeopardy rights were violated when he was convicted of delivery of cocaine
within 1,000 feet of a community center.  Because we conclude that there was no
double jeopardy violation, we affirm.




No.                                                                                      94-3244
Aldazabal was charged with delivery of a controlled substance
within 1,000 feet of a community center, as a repeater, on July 23, 1992.   On
November 30, 1992, the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss because
the  State  was  unable  to  locate  an  important  witness.    Six  months  later,
Aldazabal was recharged with the same offense.   After a jury trial, Aldazabal
was convicted and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.
Aldazabal, proceeding pro se, contends that his double jeopardy
rights  were  violated  because  he  was  recharged  after  the  first  case  was
dismissed.   In determining whether a double jeopardy violation occurred, the
determinative  moment  is  that  at  which  jeopardy  attaches,  for  that  is  "the
lynchpin for all double jeopardy jurisprudence."   Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 38
(1978) (citation omitted).  Jeopardy does not attach in a jury trial until the jury is
sworn.  Section 972.07(2), STATS.  Because the jury was not sworn before the first
case was dismissed, jeopardy never attached.   There was no double jeopardy
violation.
Aldazabal  next  argues  that  his  double  jeopardy  rights  were
violated because his parole was revoked when the first charge was brought.
"Jeopardy, in the constitutional sense, denotes the risks traditionally associated
with criminal prosecution and with proceedings to invoke criminal punishment
for the vindication of public justice."   State ex rel. Flowers v. DHSS, 81 Wis.2d
376, 383, 260 N.W.2d 727, 732 (1978).   "This risk is absent from proceedings
which are not `essentially criminal.'"   Id. (citation omitted).   Parole revocation
proceedings are not "essentially criminal" because "[t]he element of punishment
in parole revocation is attributable to the crime for which the parolee was
originally convicted and sentenced."   Id. at 386, 260 N.W.2d at 733.   There was
no double jeopardy violation.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.  See RULE 809.23(1)(b)5, STATS.
-2-

Download 8356.pdf

Wisconsin Law