 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Olson2/20/2003
iction of OMVWI, Olson does not argue that he would not have been convicted of OMVWI if the suppression motion relating to the blood test had been granted, nor does he argue that the evidence contained in the criminal complaint and used by the circuit court is insufficient to support his conviction of OMVWI, without the results of the blood test. Therefore, the arguments that Olson presents in this appeal could not result in a reversal of his judgment of conviction for OMVWI, even if we were to accept his views as accurate statements of the law, which we do not.
. Accordingly, although the State argues that Olson's conviction should be affirmed under the holdings in State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97, 255 Wis. 2d 98, 648 N.W.2d 385, cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 704 (Dec. 16, 2002), State v. VanLaarhoven, 2001 WI App 275, 248 Wis. 2d 881, 637 N.W.2d 411 and State v. Wintlend, 2002 WI App 314, __ Wis. 2d ___, 655 N.W.2d 745 because we conclude that there is nothing in the arguments presented in this appeal that bears on the circuit court's judgment of conviction for Olson's violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a), we do not analyze the applicability of Krawjewski, VanLaarhoven, Wintlend, or any other case relating to the Fourth Amendment issues raised by Olson. Instead, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court without further discussion.
By the Court. -- Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. § 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|