|
COURT OF
APPEALS DECISION DATED AND
RELEASED June
13, 1996 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an
adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.
See § 808.10 and Rule
809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound
volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-0383-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE
OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LEE E.
RHOADS,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County: STUART A. SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Affirmed.
VERGERONT,
J.[1] 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.
This
opinion will not be published. See
Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.