Opinion ID: 2161403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Claimed Improper Sentencing.

Text: Each of the defendants was convicted of both burglary and theft. They were given consecutive sentences as to each of said crimes. It is urged that the net result to the defendants  has been unjust because, in other counties of this state, prosecutors might process only the burglary charge and not the theft charge. No authority is cited by the defendants for their contention, and no case law has been brought to our attention which proscribes the practice employed in the instant case. On the contrary, in State v. Johnson (1960), 11 Wis. (2d) 130, 104 N. W. (2d) 379, the accused was charged, convicted, and sentenced for both burglary and theft, and this court affirmed without discussing the issue now under consideration. We have held that it is not proper to convict for both an underlying felony and a felony murder (third-degree murder). Ronzani v. State (1964), 24 Wis. (2d) 512, 519, 129 N. W. (2d) 143; State v. Carlson (1958), 5 Wis. (2d) 595, 93 N. W. (2d) 354. Such conclusion, however, is derived from the fact that the penalty under the express language of sec. 940.03, Stats., entitled Third-degree murder, is determined by increasing the maximum penalty specified for the underlying felony. Thus, the Ronzani and Carlson concept as to felony murder is not applicable to a burglary-theft situation. We conclude that it is legal for an accused to be prosecuted on both burglary and theft charges; this is true even though it may be that the contemplated theft supplies the felonious intent for the burglary. We do not regard sec. 939.66, Stats., to be applicable because the theft is not an included crime of the burglary.