Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-3141-CR State v. Bogumill

By: dmc-admin//May 28, 2002//

01-3141-CR State v. Bogumill

By: dmc-admin//May 28, 2002//

Listen to this article

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This opinion will not be published.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

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests