State v. Liebnitz, 98-2182.
Decision Date | 21 December 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 98-2182.,98-2182. |
Citation | 231 Wis.2d 272,603 N.W.2d 208 |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David C. LIEBNITZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendant-appellant there were briefs (in the court of appeals) by Rex R. Anderegg and Anderegg & Mutschler, LLP, Milwaukee and oral argument by Rex R. Anderegg.
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Gregory M. Posner-Weber, assistant attorney general with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
¶ 1.
Defendant David C. Liebnitz (Liebnitz) was charged with multiple felony counts and as a habitual criminal (a repeat offender or repeater) pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 939.62 (1991-92).1 Liebnitz and the State of Wisconsin (State) subsequently entered into an agreement in which Liebnitz agreed to enter a plea of no contest. The agreement included a sentencing recommendation that could be attained only through application of the repeater statute. The circuit court accepted Liebnitz's no contest plea and imposed the recommended penalty.
[1]
¶ 2. Liebnitz now contends that the years of incarceration attributable to his status as a repeater are void. To sentence a defendant as a repeater, Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1)2 requires the State to prove, or the defendant to admit, any prior convictions that form the basis of the defendant's repeater status. Liebnitz contends that § 973.12(1) was not satisfied in his case. We disagree. The record establishes that Liebnitz fully understood the nature of the repeater charge. Based upon the totality of the record, we conclude that Liebnitz's plea to the information constituted an admission under § 973.12. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court order denying his motion to void an excess sentence not authorized by law. ¶ 3. The facts in this case are not in dispute. On August 27, 1992, Liebnitz was in an automobile collision in which three people were killed and two were seriously injured. Liebnitz was also injured in the crash.
¶ 4. On the following day, the State charged Liebnitz with three felony counts of homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle3 and two counts of causing great bodily harm by negligent operation of a vehicle.4 With each of these five counts, the criminal complaint charged Liebnitz as a repeat offender under Wis. Stat. § 939.62.5 Each repeater charge in the criminal complaint set forth the facts supporting its application to Liebnitz. Liebnitz does not challenge the accuracy or specificity of the repeater provisions detailed within the complaint.
¶ 5. Liebnitz appeared before the Washington County Circuit Court for a hearing on August 31, 1992. At the hearing, Liebnitz, through his counsel, received a copy of the criminal complaint.
¶ 6. Although Liebnitz's counsel waived reading of the complaint, the circuit court judge proceeded to read the charges and the repeater allegations:
¶ 7. An arraignment was held on October 16, 1992. The information was served, filed, and defense counsel acknowledged receipt of a copy of that document. The information individually listed each count, and its related repeater charge, being brought against Liebnitz. Liebnitz entered a plea of not guilty.
¶ 8. Subsequently, the parties reached a plea agreement. The written plea agreement, filed with the circuit court on February 8, 1993, set forth a sentencing recommendation that provided for consecutive, enhanced sentences on counts one through three (four years on each count) and consecutive, statutory maximum sentences on counts four and five (18 months on each count). On February 26, 1993, Liebnitz completed a Request to Enter Plea and Waiver of Rights form and filed it with the court. On the form, Liebnitz acknowledged that he understood that the possible maximum penalties that he faced upon his conviction were eight years each for counts one, two and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Saunders
...Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1) to a set of undisputed facts. This is a question of law to which we apply de novo review. State v. Liebnitz, 231 Wis. 2d 272, 283, 603 N.W.2d 208 (1999); State v. Campbell, 201 Wis. 2d 783, 788, 549 N.W.2d 501 (Ct. App. ¶ 16. Wisconsin Stat. § 939.62 is one of many st......
-
State v. Hill
...the repeater enhancer may constitute an admission to the prior convictions necessary to apply that enhancer. See State v. Liebnitz, 231 Wis.2d 272, 603 N.W.2d 208 (1999) ; State v. Rachwal, 159 Wis.2d 494, 465 N.W.2d 490 (1991) . In Rachwal , for instance, the defendant pled no contest to......
-
State v. Wilfong
... ... ("a guilty plea is an admission of all the elements of a ... formal criminal charge"); see also State v ... Liebnitz , 603 N.W.2d 208, 214 (Wis. 1999) (recognizing ... the well-established rule that what is admitted by a guilty ... plea is all the ... ...
-
State v. Sease
... ... STAT. § 973.12(1)). We ... review de novo whether the requirements of § 973.12(1) ... have been satisfied. State v. Liebnitz , 231 Wis.2d ... 272, 283, 603 N.W.2d 208 (1999) ... ¶22 ... We agree with the State that Sease stipulated to ... ...