 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ilkka4/13/2000
Cornelia G. Clark , Clerk Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Iowa County: WILLIAM D. DYKE, Judge. Affirmed.
. Michael Ilkka appeals from an order directing that he begin serving a sentence for a misdemeanor traffic offense. We affirm.
. The facts, while unusual, may be briefly stated. Ilkka was charged in Iowa County with fourth-offense drunk driving . After denial of his motion to suppress evidence, he entered a plea to the charge and was convicted. On December 23, 1998, Ilkka was sentenced to 180 days and ordered to report to the Iowa County jail on December 31 to begin his sentence. At his request, the Iowa County court added a provision permitting him to serve the sentence in Sauk County if it could be arranged. On December 30, in an unrelated case, Ilkka was convicted of fourth-offense drunk driving in the Sauk County Circuit Court and sentenced to 240 days in the Sauk County jail, with the sentence to begin the following day, December 31. Neither the Iowa nor Sauk county judges knew of the other case.
. Ilkka reported to the Iowa County jail on December 31, 1998, and was directed by the Iowa County Sheriff to report to the Sauk County jail. He did and remained there for 240 days (less good time), and was released on June 28, 1999.
. In August 1999, the Iowa County Sheriff's office notified the Iowa County court and district attorney that Ilkka had not yet served his Iowa County sentence; and, on August 19, the district attorney filed a motion to compel service of that sentence. Making a special appearance, Ilkka moved to dismiss the motion, arguing that the Iowa County court had lost jurisdiction over the matter and, further, that, as a matter of law, his Iowa County sentence should be deemed to have been served concurrently with the Sauk County sentence. The court granted the State's motion and ordered Ilkka to begin serving the 180-day sentence. The court reasoned that it possessed inherent power to correct certain sentencing errors and that the error in this case was a "lack of communication" between the two counties. The court stated:
t's also clear that at the time this court was sentencing Mr. Ilkka for a fourth offense OWI, that it was asked ... that this be a courtesy to Mr. Ilkka to allow him to serve that time in Sauk County.
And to allow him not to even pretend to take advantage of that courtesy ... and not to pretend somehow that that is intending to allow him to... claim credit for time served in Sauk County pursuant to a Sauk County sentence to be applied to an Iowa County sentence is unconscionable.
. Ilkka argues first that the supreme court's decision in State v. Horn, 226 Wis. 2d 637, 594 N.W.2d 772 (1999), requires reversal of the circuit court's order for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, Ilkka refers us to the following language in Horn:
nce a defendant has been charged with a crime ... convicted, sentenced, and gone through an appeal if desired, the litigation is over and the judicial process is ended. Whether a convicted defendant is sentenced to prison or the circuit court imposes probation, the "adversary system has terminated and the administrative process, vested in the executive branch of the government ... has been substituted in its place." The judiciary phase of the criminal process-imposing a penalty-is complete.
Id. at 650 (citations omitted). Based on that statement, Ilkka asserts that the circuit court's "inherent powers" must "term
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|