State v. Van Meter, 75--83--CR
| Decision Date | 02 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--83--CR,75--83--CR |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. John R. VAN METER, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
John R. Van Meter, in pro per.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Balistreri, Asst. Atty. Gen., filed brief, for respondent.
The record in this case reflects that on December 2, 1974, a traffic citation and complaint was issued in Wood county charging that in the early morning hours on that same date, defendant had fled from an officer contrary to sec. 346.04(3), Stats. He was subsequently convicted of the charge by jury trial in the county court of Wood county.
Upon defendant's appeal to the circuit court for Wood county, the judgment of conviction was affirmed. In its decision, the court states that, prior to his conviction in Wood county court, defendant had been convicted of the charge of knowingly fleeing an officer contrary to sec. 346.04(3), Stats., in the county court of Portage county. It is further stated that the two charges arose from an incident taking place on December 2, 1974, wherein defendant was involved in a high speed chase crossing the county line from Portage county into Wood county. While in Portage county he was chased by a Portage county squad car. After crossing the county line into Wood county, he was pursued by a Wood county squad car.
Although the complaint and judgment of conviction emanating from the Portage county proceedings are not part of the record, it appears to be undisputed that defendant was convicted of two violations of the same statutory section upon charges arising out of the chase which took place on December 2, 1974. There is no record as to the penalty imposed upon conviction for either violation. No transcript has been provided to this court for the proceedings in either Wood county or Portage county. Defendant concedes that it was his decision, in the interest of economy, to forego providing a transcript of proceedings to the circuit court or this court for review.
Determination of a single issue will be dispositive of this appeal.
Do the pleadings, decision, findings and conclusions as reflected by the record before this court sustain the judgment of conviction?
Sec. 346.04(3), Stats., for violation of which defendant was convicted in both Portage and Wood counties, provides:
'(3) No operator of a vehicle, after having received a visual or audible signal from a traffic officer, or marked police vehicle, shall knowingly flee or attempt to elude any traffic officer by wilful or wanton disregard of such signal so as to interfere with or endanger the operation of the police vehicle, or the traffic officer or other vehicles or pedestrians, nor shall he increase the speed of his vehicle or extinguish the lights of his vehicle in an attempt to elude or flee.'
Defendant argues that his prosecution in Wood county is barred by the judgment in Portage county. For this contention, he relies upon the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy, as well as two separate sections of the Wisconsin statutes.
The fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States requires, in pertinent part:
'. . .; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; . . .'
Art. I, sec. 8, Wisconsin Constitution provides, in pertinent part:
'. . . and no person for the same offense shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment, . . .'
This court has recognized the importance of the constitutional guarantee:
State v. Gecht (1962), 17 Wis.2d 455, 458, 117 N.W.2d 340, 342.
The basic issue, then, is what is meant by the term 'same offense.' State v. Elbaum (1972), 54 Wis.2d 213, 218, 194 N.W.2d 660. The principal factor which must be considered in regard to the known facts of this case is that defendant was convicted of violating the same statutory section in each of two separate prosecutions, one in Portage county and one in Wood county.
A prosecution for eluding Wood county officers in Wood county is not a prohibited trial 'for the same offense' when the defendant had previously been convicted of eluding Portage county officers in Portage county.
In order for defendant to plead successfully former jeopardy, the offenses charged in the two prosecutions must be identical in the law and in fact. 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 278(1), pp. 713, 715. Because defendant has been convicted of two violations of the same statute, identity of legal elements is shown. However, in this case the second portion of the test, identity in fact, cannot be shown.
In State v. George (1975), 69 Wis.2d 92, 98, 230 N.W.2d 253, 256, this court reaffirmed the test for determining existence of double jeopardy as it relates to the facts supporting the separate charges:
'In Anderson v. State (1936), 221 Wis. 78, 87, 256 N.W. 210, 214, this court adopted the following test to determine whether, subsequent to a prosecution on an indictment (or complaint), another prosecution on a different indictment (or complaint) would entail a violation of the right against double jeopardy: if ". . . 'facts alleged under either of the indictments would, if proved under the other, warrant a conviction under the latter,' . . ." double jeopardy is involved. . . .'
See also: 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 279, p. 722.
This emphasizes the importance of having all of the facts in the record for purposes of review. Where the record on appeal contains no transcrip, the review on appeal to this court must be limited to whether the pleadings, decision, findings and conclusions sustain the judgment. De Toro v. DI-LA-CH, Inc. (1966), 31 Wis.2d 29, 33, 142 N.W.2d 192; Estate of Reynolds (1964), 24 Wis.2d 370, 374, 129 N.W.2d 251; Perkins v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 341, 347, 348, 212 N.W.2d 141. Because none of the evidentiary facts are before this court, it must be assumed that the evidence was amply sufficient to support the verdict in the Wood county case. Holesome v. State (1968), 40 Wis.2d 95, 99, 100, 161 N.W.2d 283. However, because the statement of facts in the circuit court decision show the existence of the former charge and conviction and are not disputed, the Holesome v. State, supra, assumption is extended to the Portage county proceedings.
Therefore, since the record of the Portage county conviction is not before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lechner
...the defendant pled no contest are different in either fact or law. See Rabe, 96 Wis.2d at 65, 291 N.W.2d 809; State v. Van Meter, 72 Wis.2d 754, 758, 242 N.W.2d 206 (1976). Since the defendant pled no contest to two separate counts of violating the same statutory provision, the offenses are......
-
State v. Rabe
...jeopardy, the courts have determined whether the severed offenses are "identical in the law and in fact." State v. Van Meter, 72 Wis.2d 754, 758, 242 N.W.2d 206, 208 (1976). Because the four offenses charged in the present case are identical in law, "(t)he test for (freedom from) multiplici......
-
State v. Sauceda
...are charged. In cases where multiple offenses are charged under the same statute, identity in law exists. See State v. Van Meter, 72 Wis.2d 754, 758, 242 N.W.2d 206, 208 (1976); see also Tappa, 127 Wis.2d at 162-63, 378 N.W.2d at 886, and State v. Eisch, 96 Wis.2d 25, 31, 291 N.W.2d 800, 80......
-
Lechner v. Litscher
...the defendant pled no contest are different in either fact or law. See Rabe, 96 Wis.2d at 65, 291 N.W.2d 809; State v. Van Meter, 72 Wis.2d 754, 758, 242 N.W.2d 206 (1976). Since the defendant pled no contest to two separate counts of violating the same statutory provision, the offenses are......