01-1118 State v. Herman

Listen to this article

Defendant maintained that suspension of his license was not warranted because he was not driving at the time of his offense and he needs his car for employment, further arguing that the court had discretion to suspend his license for less than six months because the ‘961.50 suspension is presumptive rather than mandatory. We disagree.

We conclude that a suspension imposed pursuant to ‘961.50 is not a “minimum sentence” as that term is used in ‘961.438 and that it is a mandatory penalty.

“Pursuant to the federal legislation, states had the opportunity to require suspensions ‘in all circumstances,’ or to require suspensions ‘in the absence of compelling circumstances warranting an exception.’ See Pub. L. No. 101-516, ‘ 333(A). Nothing in ‘ 961.50(1) suggests that the legislature elected to require suspensions ‘in the absence of compelling circumstances warranting an exception.’ We conclude that the lack of a reference to ‘compelling circumstances’ shows that the legislature intended to select the option of requiring suspensions ‘in all circumstances.'”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Barron County, Brunner, J., Cane, C.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Jack E. Schairer, Madison; Jefren E. Olsen, Madison

For Respondent: James C. Babler, Barron; Susan M. Crawford, Madison