|
COURT OF
APPEALS DECISION DATED AND
RELEASED August
22, 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. 96-0433-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
CITY
OF RICHLAND CENTER,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MARYGAYE
TATE,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for Richland County: KENT C. HOUCK, Judge. Affirmed.
VERGERONT,
J.[1] Marygaye
Tate 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.
The sole issue on appeal is whether her prosecution was precluded by the
Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
because she had previously been administratively suspended for the same
violation.
Tate
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. Tate explains
that she has raised this issue on appeal solely to preserve it for review.
McMaster is controlling.
We conclude that the 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This opinion will not be
published.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.