From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Rhoads

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Jun 13, 1996
Case No. 96-0383-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Jun. 13, 1996)

Opinion

Case No. 96-0383-CR.

Opinion Released: June 13, 1996 Opinion Filed: June 13, 1996 This opinion will not be published. See RULE 809.23(1)(b)4, STATS.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County: STUART A. SCHWARTZ, Judge. Affirmed.


Lee E. Rhoads appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, in violation of § 346.63(1)(a), STATS., and for an occupational license restriction violation, in violation of § 343.10(8)(a)1, STATS. The sole issue on appeal is whether his prosecution was precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because he had previously been administratively suspended for the same violation under § 343.305, STATS.

Rhoads acknowledges that in State v. McMaster , 198 Wis.2d 542, 543 N.W.2d 499 (Ct.App. 1995), petition for review granted, ___ Wis.2d ___, 546 N.W.2d 468 (1996), we held that criminal prosecution for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration after administrative suspension of operating privileges does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 544, 543 N.W.2d at 499. Rhoads explains that he has raised this issue on appeal solely to preserve it for review.

Following McMaster , we conclude that the criminal prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Rhoads

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Jun 13, 1996
Case No. 96-0383-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Jun. 13, 1996)
Case details for

State v. Rhoads

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. LEE E. RHOADS…

Court:Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Date published: Jun 13, 1996

Citations

Case No. 96-0383-CR (Wis. Ct. App. Jun. 13, 1996)