State v. David M. Hahn
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2001 WI 6 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 99-0554 Complete Title of Case: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David M. Hahn, Defendant-Appellant. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2000 WI 118 Reported at: 238 Wis. 2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528 Opinion Filed: Submitted on Briefs: Oral Argument: Source of APPEAL COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: Concurred: Dissented: Not Participating: ATTORNEYS: February 9, 2001 2001 WI 6 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 99-0554-CR STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT State of Wisconsin, FILED Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FEB 9, 2001 David M. Hahn, Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI Defendant-Appellant. ¶1 State PER CURIAM. of Wisconsin, The (on motion for reconsideration). plaintiff-respondent, moves the court to reconsider the following sentence in paragraph 28 of its opinion in State v. Hahn, 2000 WI 118, 238 Wis. 2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528: "If the offender has no means available under state law or is unsuccessful in challenging the prior conviction, the offender may nevertheless seek to reopen the enhanced sentence." State contends this sentence raises the question of The what justification would exist for the defendant to seek to reopen the enhanced sentence if the defendant had unsuccessfully challenged the prior conviction. ¶2 To clarify the original Hahn opinion, we now modify the sentence quoted above to read as follows: No. 99-0554-CR If the offender has no means available under state law to challenge the prior conviction on the merits, because, for example, the courts never reached the merits of this challenge under State v. EscalonaNaranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), or the offender is no longer in custody on the prior conviction, the offender may nevertheless seek to reopen the enhanced sentence. ¶3 The motion for reconsideration costs. 2 is denied without No. 1 99-0554-CR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
