Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Bonds

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 2006No. 2005AP948-CRPublished

1ConcurrenceShirley S. Abrahamson, C.J.

¶ 55. (concurring) . I agree with the result reached by the court: The repeater enhancement to the defendant's sentence *379must be vacated. The State's significant amendment of the repeater allegation after a guilty verdict is prohibited by Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1).

¶ 56. I write separately to express my disagreement with the court's rewriting of Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1) to allow significant amendments to the charging documents after a guilty verdict.

¶ 57. I also write separately to explain that CCAP data are not an official report under Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1) and therefore CCAP data alone are…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. State v. MartinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. SaundersWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State v. JenningsWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
  5. State v. GerardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1995

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API