2000 WI 90

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

Case No.:���������� 97-3140-CR

Complete Title

of Case:����������

State of Wisconsin,

���� Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner,

���� v.

William J. Church,

���� Defendant-Appellant.

REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Reported at:� 223 Wis. 2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638

��������� (Ct. App. 1998-Published)

Opinion Filed:������� July 11, 2000

Submitted on Briefs:����

Oral Argument:������ April 6, 2000

Source of APPEAL

��������������� COURT:����� Circuit

��������������� COUNTY:���� Dane

��������������� JUDGE:������ Sarah B. O�Brien

JUSTICES:

��������������� Concurred:����

��������������� Dissented:����

��������������� Not Participating:�

ATTORNEYS:������� For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner the cause was argued by Susan M. Crawford, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, attorney general.

��������������� For the defendant-appellant there was a brief and oral argument by James L. Fullin, assistant state public defender.

2000 WI 90

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing and modification.� The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.

No.� 97-3140-CR

STATE OF WISCONSIN������������������� : �� ��IN SUPREME COURT

FILED

JUL 11, 2000

Cornelia G. Clark

Clerk of Supreme Court

Madison, WI

State of Wisconsin,

��������� Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner,

���� v.

William J. Church,

��������� Defendant-Appellant.

REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.� Dismissed.

�1�� PER CURIAM.   The State petitioned for review of the decision of the court of appeals, State v. Church, 223 Wis. 2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998), reversing a judgment of conviction of the Circuit Court for Dane County, Sarah B. O'Brien, Judge.� The conviction was for two counts of child enticement, one a violation of Wis. Stat. � 948.07(3) and the other a violation of Wis. Stat. � 948.07(6), based on one act of causing a child to enter a hotel.�

�2�� The court of appeals reversed the conviction.� It held that the two counts were multiplicitous "because Wis. Stat. � 948.07 does not permit multiple punishments for one act of enticement simply because the defendant intended multiple misdeeds, rather than a single misdeed, with the victim."� 223 Wis. 2d at 645-46.

�3�� The State argued in the court of appeals, in its petition for review and in its briefs to this court, that Wis. Stat. � 948.07 creates multiple offenses that may be punished separately.� At oral argument the State departed from its prior position.� It argued that its interpretation of the child enticement statute advanced in State v. Derango, 2000 WI 89, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, is correct, namely, that Wis. Stat. � 948.07 creates a single offense with alternative mental states that may be submitted to the jury without a requirement of unanimity.

�4�� The issue framed in the present case has been decided by this court in State v. Derango, of even date.

�5�� For the reasons set forth, we conclude that review in this case was improvidently granted, and we dismiss the petition for review.

By the Court.�The review of the decision of the court of appeals is dismissed.