5 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. SCOW finds no problem with felony and misdemeanor penalty for same OAR offense

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJuly 7, 2017

    Villamil argues that under the rule of lenity he can only be convicted of a misdemeanor, but the court disagrees. That rule applies only if a court is unable to clarify the intent of the legislature, State v. Cole, 2003 WI 59, ¶67, 262 Wis. 2d 167, 663 N.W.2d 700, and here “Villamil caused the death of another and knew his license had been revoked. The legislative history shows, and Villamil acknowledges, that the legislature intended to treat his offense as a Class H felony.

  2. Statute creating both misdemeanor and felony offense isn’t subject to rule of lenity, doesn’t violate due process or equal protection

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJuly 20, 2016

    The rule of lenity applies only when the statute is ambiguous and the court can’t clarify the intent of the legislature by resort to legislative history. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 59, ¶67, 262 Wis. 2d 167, 663 N.W.2d 700. (¶8).

  3. Summary Contempt, §§ 785.01(1)(a), 785.04(2)(b); Conduct Prompted by the Court

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderOctober 10, 2012

    In this case, each of Deleon’s contemptuous acts was separated by a question or comment from the court. As a result, the court properly determined his actions amounted to distinct contemptuous acts.Of note: the court deems that the rule of lenity “applies only to criminal statutes and the contempt statutes are civil in nature,” ¶12, citing State v. Cole, 2003 WI 59, ¶13, 262 Wis. 2d 167, 663 N.W.2d 700 for the former principle and State v. Carpenter,179 Wis. 2d 838, 840, 508 N.W.2d 69 (Ct. App. 1993) for the latter. Carpenter indeed holds “that contempt of court is not a crime,” id.

  4. State v. Stephen A. Freer, 2010 WI App 9, PFR filed

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderDecember 30, 2009

    See Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 2006 WI 107, ¶32, 295 Wis. 2d 1, 719 N.W.2d 408,” ¶22.Statutory Construction: Rule of Lenity¶26 The rule of lenity comes into play only when a court is unable to clarify the intent of the legislature, see Cole, 262 Wis. 2d 167, ¶67, and we have clarified the legislative intent of Wis. Stat. § 940.

  5. Presumptive Minimum – Truth-in-Sentencing

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJune 22, 2003

    State v. Tommie L. Cole, 2003 WI 59, on certification For Cole: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison AppellateIssue/Holding:¶9. The court of appeals asks that we determine what combination of confinement in prison and extended supervision constitutes the presumptive minimum sentence when a statute provides that an offender “shall be imprisoned for not less than 3 years.”