State v. Anthony Hicks
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: Complete Title of Case: 94-2542-CR State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, Anthony Hicks, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. ________________________________________ REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Reported at: 196 Wis. 2d 372, 539 N.W.2d 135 (Ct. App. 1995) UNPUBLISHED Opinion Filed: Submitted on Briefs: Oral Argument: Source of APPEAL COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: January 24, 1997 September 24, 1996 Circuit Milwaukee STANLEY A. MILLER JUSTICES: Concurred: Dissented: Not Participating: For the defendant-respondent-petitioner the cause was submitted on the briefs of Robert R. Henak and Shellow, Shellow & Glynn, S.C., Milwaukee. ATTORNEYS: For the plaintiff-appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of Stephen W. Kleinmaier, assistant attorney general, and James E. Doyle, attorney general. 94-2542-CR NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 94-2542-CR STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT FILED State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, JAN 24, 1997 v. Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI Anthony Hicks, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Reversed and remanded. ¶1 decision DONALD W. of court the STEINMETZ, of J. appeals This is reversing a an review order of of a the circuit court for Milwaukee County, Stanley A. Miller, Judge, dismissing one count of a criminal complaint charging Anthony Hicks with a violation of the controlled substance tax statute. The defendant, Hicks, argues that he has standing to raise a Fifth Amendment 139.87-139.96, challenge1 constitutional the drug tax statutes, to Wis. because he Stats. faces §§ a criminal conviction for violation of these statutes. ¶2 In State v. Hall, No. 94-2848-CR (S. Ct. January 24, 1 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, that [n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . without due process of law . . . . U.S. Const. Amend. V. This amendment is applied to the states by U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, which states that [n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . . 1 94-2542-CR 1997), this court unconstitutional. presented in this held that the Thus, we do not case, prosecuted for being in stamp. because possession drug tax reach the of stamp the standing defendant cocaine statute is issue cannot without be a tax Instead, we reverse and remand to the circuit court with directions to dismiss with prejudice the drug tax stamp charge. By the Court. Reversed and cause remanded with directions. 2
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.
