State v. Miller
| Decision Date | 02 December 1941 |
| Citation | 239 Wis. 334,1 N.W.2d 178 |
| Parties | STATE v. MILLER. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from certain parts of a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County; E. J. Morrison, Judge.
Reversed.Claude Miller was prosecuted under an information in which there were five counts. The first two charged offenses punishable by fine or imprisonment in the county jail and the last three alleged previous convictions which would render defendant amenable to sentence as a repeater under sec. 359.14, Stats. The defendant pleaded guilty to each count of the information, and thereupon the court pronounced sentence and entered judgment in substance as follows: On each of the first two counts, a separate sentence of imprisonment in the county jail; on each of the last three counts, a separate indeterminate sentence of one to two years in the state prison; the sentences on the first four counts to run concurrently at the state prison, and the sentence on the fifth count to run consecutively. Judgment was entered accordingly; and Miller appealed from those parts of the judgment which imposed sentences on the third, fourth, and fifth counts.
Bogue, Sanderson & Kammholz, of Portage, for appellant.
John E. Martin, Atty. Gen., and William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The defendant and appellant, Claude Miller, appeals only from those parts of the judgment by which he was sentenced separately on the third, fourth and fifth counts, so-called. Each of these counts alleged a prior conviction of Miller because of which he was amenable to the provisions of sec. 359.14, Stats., sometimes referred to as the “repeater” statute. He contends that no new, or separate, or distinct offense of any kind was charged against him in the third, fourth or fifth counts; that there is no attempt in sec. 359.14, Stats., to impose further punishment for the commission of a crime for which a defendant had been previously sentenced; and that consequently the court was without right or authority to impose any sentence separately upon the third, fourth or fifth counts of the information. These contentions must be sustained.
The court was clearly in error in imposing sentence on the third, fourth and fifth counts as though they charged and as though there were convictions under them of separate substantive offenses other than the offenses charged in the first and second counts. As this court said in Watson v. State, 190 Wis. 245, 208 N.W. 897, 898: “It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davidson v. Nygaard
...61 Okl.Cr. 162, 66 P.2d 965; State v. King, 18 Wash.2d 747, 140 P.2d 283; State v. Hensley, 20 Wash.2d 95, 145 P.2d 1014; State v. Miller, 239 Wis. 334, 1 N.W.2d 178; Ex parte Kuwitzky, 135 Neb. 466, 282 N.W. 396; State v. Collins, 266 Mo. 93, 180 S.W. Since the information upon which the j......
-
State v. Meyer
...as interpreted in the decision by Judge Siebecker and followed by Judge Risjord, we call attention to the case of State v. Miller, 239 Wis. 334, 336, 1 N.W.2d 178, 179, where it was held that the alleging of prior convictions under the provisions of section 359.14 did not constitute separat......
-
State v. Watkins
...531; Watson v. State (1926), 190 Wis. 245, 247, 208 N.W. 897; Mundon v. State (1928), 196 Wis. 469, 471, 220 N.W. 650; State v. Miller (1941), 239 Wis. 334, 1 N.W.2d 178; State v. Sullivan (1942), 241 Wis. 276, 5 N.W.2d 798.13 (1909), 139 Wis. 529, 121 N.W. 133. See also, Meyers v. State (1......
-
State v. Harris
...Block, 41 Wis.2d at 212, 163 N.W.2d 196; State v. McAllister, 107 Wis.2d 532, 536-37, 319 N.W.2d 865 (1982); State v. Miller, 239 Wis. 334, 1 N.W.2d 178 (1941); Watson v. State, 190 Wis. 245, 208 N.W. 897 (1926). Thus, we have previously recognized, although only by implication, that sec. 9......