By: dmc-admin//May 28, 2002//
Dawn Bogumill appeals a judgment of conviction for third offense operating after revocation. Bogumill argues, as she did in the trial court, that sec. 343.44(2g)(c) is unconstitutional because it has the effect of Bogumill being treated differently from similarly situated people.
Bogumill has two prior OAR convictions that were related to failure to pay fines or forfeitures. Because her current revocation arose out of an operating while intoxicated conviction, the penalties under Wis. Stat. sec. 343.44(2g) apply. Bogumill argues that sec. 343.44(2g)(c) is unconstitutional because she is being treated the same as someone whose two previous OAR convictions were OWI-related.
Nonetheless, she is also treated the same as other individuals with two fine-related OAR convictions and a current OWI-related OAR charge.
Accordingly, this court affirms the judgment.
This opinion will not be published.
Dist III, Eau Claire County, Stark, J., Hoover, P.J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Kelly J. McKnight, Eau Claire
For Respondent: Raymond L. Pelrine, Eau Claire; Richard W. White, Eau Claire