Title: State v. David M. Hahn
Citation: 2001 WI 6
Docket Number: 1999AP000554-CR
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 9, 2001

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: 
February 9, 2001 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
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,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
David M. Hahn,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  (on motion for reconsideration).  The 
State of Wisconsin, 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."  The 
State contends this sentence raises the question of 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: 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 9, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
99-0554-CR 
 
 
2 
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. Escalona-
Naranjo, 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 is denied without 
costs. 
 
 
No. 
99-0554-CR 
 
 
1