COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED March 26, 1997 |
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. 96-2833-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT II
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KATHLEEN S. BURCHELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Walworth County:
JOHN R. RACE, Judge. Affirmed.
BROWN, J. Kathleen
S. Burchell appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle
with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration.
Burchell lost a pretrial challenge to the complaint where she argued
that it did not support a conclusion that she was the person who committed the
offense. She renews this claim on
appeal. Moreover, Burchell argues that
her OWI conviction is void under the double jeopardy clause because it followed
an administrative suspension of her license.
We reject both claims and affirm the judgment.
The pertinent facts are
undisputed. On April 11, 1996, the
State filed a complaint charging Burchell with operating a motor vehicle while
under the influence of an intoxicant and with a prohibited blood alcohol
concentration. See
§ 346.63, Stats.
The complaint was a
standard-form document that had various blanks which the person completing the
form could fill in or check off, thus molding the form to fit different arrest
scenarios. The caption listed
Burchell's full name and her date of birth.
Other parts of the form were checked off to indicate that “the arresting
officer personally observed the defendant operate a motor vehicle” and that
“the defendant ... identified ... herself as the above-named defendant” after
the arresting officer made contact with her.
As noted, Burchell's
counsel filed a pretrial motion challenging the adequacy of this
complaint. During oral argument,
counsel rhetorically asked, “[H]ow is this defendant identified?” Counsel further contended that the form did
not provide enough information to link the person whose name is listed on the
form to the person who actually committed the offense.
The trial court,
however, rejected the motion. It
reasoned that the inclusion of Burchell's date of birth was sufficient to
support an inference that she was properly identified.
The standards we apply
to measure the adequacy of a criminal complaint are well settled. A complaint is sufficient if it alleges
facts that could lead a reasonable person to conclude that the person probably
committed a crime. See State v.
O'Connell, 179 Wis.2d 598, 604, 508 N.W.2d 23, 25 (Ct. App. 1993). One of the elements that a complaint must
reasonably establish is that the accused has been properly identified. See id. The issue of whether a complaint meets a required standard is a matter we review
independently of the trial court. See id.
On appeal, Burchell
argues that this complaint does not reasonably identify her because it only
contains her name and her date of birth.
If this is all of the information that the complaining officer had about
her, she contends, how can a reviewing court be certain that the officer had
the right person?
The State responds that
this complaint reveals more information than that. According to the State, the complaint also informs a reviewing
court that the arresting officer saw Burchell driving a car and that she
identified herself to the officer.
We conclude that this
complaint is legally sufficient. It
reveals to the court that the officer not only saw Burchell, but that he was
able to confirm that this person actually was Burchell because she told him who
she was. The complaint thus provides
enough information to support a conclusion that the officer who arrested
Burchell properly identified her.
Burchell's next claim is
that the judgment is void under the double jeopardy clause because this
conviction followed an administrative suspension of her license. This claim, however, fails under the supreme
court's recent decision in State v. McMaster, 206 Wis.2d 30,
33-34, 556 N.W.2d 673, 674-75 (1996).
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.