State v. Ramirez

2001 WI App 158, 633 N.W.2d 656, 246 Wis. 2d 802, 2001 Wisc. App. LEXIS 618
CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin
DecidedJune 13, 2001
Docket00-2605-CR
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 2001 WI App 158 (State v. Ramirez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Ramirez, 2001 WI App 158, 633 N.W.2d 656, 246 Wis. 2d 802, 2001 Wisc. App. LEXIS 618 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

NETTESHEIM J.

¶ 1. Alfredo Ramirez appeals from a judgment of conviction for misappropriating the personal identifying information of another pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 943.201(2) (1999-2000). 2 This offense is sometimes referred to as theft of identity. Ramirez contends that the statute as applied in this case represents an ex post facto law in violation of article I, section 12 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Like the trial court, we hold that the statute creates a "continuing offense" under Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970), and John v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 183, 291 N.W.2d 502 (1980). Therefore, the application of the statute did not violate Ramirez's ex post facto constitutional protection.

*805 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. The facts are brief and undisputed. At all times relevant to this case, Ramirez was an illegal resident of the United States and did not have a social security number. On September 2, 1997, Ramirez obtained employment at Trek Bike in Walworth county. On June 4, 1999, a human resources manager at Trek Bike reported to the police that a list of people with corresponding social security numbers had been discovered in the desk of a former employee who had been fired. One of the social security numbers was listed to a Jose Ramirez. A check with the social security administration revealed that this social security number was actually assigned to Benjamin Wulfen-stein of Elko, Nevada. In an interview with the police, Ramirez stated that Jose Ramirez was his cousin and that Jose had sent him the social security card two years earlier. Ramirez admitted that he had used Wulfenstein's social security number when he applied for employment at Trek Bike. Trek Bike terminated Ramirez on July 6,1999.

¶ 3. Based on this information, the State charged Ramirez with intentionally misappropriating the personal identifying information of an individual to obtain a thing of value without the individual's consent pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 943.201(2). 3 The complaint and information alleged that the offense occurred between *806 the dates of Ramirez's employment, September 2,1997 to July 6,1999.

¶ 4. Relying on the fact that Wis. Stat. § 943.201(2) did not become effective until April 27, 1998, after the date he obtained employment at Trek Bike, Ramirez moved to dismiss the information. The State responded with an amended information that alleged the effective date of the statute as the commencing date of the offense. The termination date of the offense remained the same as in the original information — July 6, 1999. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court ruled that the offense was a "continuing charge, and every Friday when the checks were cut, he got money; and it was upon his representation that he . . . possessed lawfully this Social Security Number." The court denied Ramirez's motion to dismiss. Ramirez then pled guilty and he takes this appeal. 4

*807 DISCUSSION

¶ 5. Ramirez contends that Wis. Stat. § 943.201(2), as applied against him in this case, is an ex post facto law contrary to article I, section 12 of the Wisconsin Constitution. 5 An ex post facto law includes "any law which was passed after the commission of the offense for which the party is being tried." State v. Thiel, 188 Wis. 2d 695, 701, 524 N.W.2d 641 (1994) (citation omitted). 6

¶ 6. Ramirez raises two closely related ex post facto arguments. First, he contends that even if Wis. Stat. § 943.201(2) creates a continuing offense, the only thing of value that he obtained as a result of his unauthorized use of Wulfenstein's social security number was the opportunity of employment with Trek Bike. Since this event occurred before the effective date of the statute, Ramirez argues that the application of the statute represents an ex post facto law. If we reject this argument and conclude that Ramirez obtained something of value after the effective date of the statute, Ramirez argues that his conduct still was not criminal since § 943.201(2) does not create a continuing offense.

*808 ¶ 7. We first determine whether Ramirez obtained a thing of value as the result of his unauthorized use of Wulfenstein's social security number. Ramirez contends that all he obtained was a job, which he describes as "the opportunity to work." He says, "A job has no intrinsic value if it is obtained and then the employee squanders the opportunity and never begins to work. What makes a job valuable is the opportunity to work hard and earn money." We think this is far too narrow a concept of the value of Ramirez's employment at Trek Bike. True, Ramirez obtained employment at Trek Bike. But what Ramirez ultimately sought and obtained was the compensation and other economic benefits that flowed from the employment. Obviously these were things of value within the meaning of § 943.201(2). And since Ramirez obtained these things after the effective date of the statute, we hold that the statute as applied was not an ex post facto law.

¶ 8. That brings us to Ramirez's second ex post facto argument, that Wis. STAT. § 943.201(2), as applied in this case, represents an ex post facto law because the statute does not create a continuing offense. The question of whether a particular criminal offense is continuing in nature is primarily one of statutory interpretation. John, 96 Wis. 2d at 188 (citing Toussie, 397 U.S. at 125). Statutory construction presents a question of law that we review de novo. Grosse v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 182 Wis. 2d 97, 105, 513 N.W.2d 592 (1994).

¶ 9. In John, our supreme court quoted the United States Supreme Court's decision in Toussie when addressing the criteria for determining whether a particular statute creates a continuing offense:

*809 These considerations do not mean that a particular offense should never be construed as a continuing one.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Prieto-Lozoya
2021 NMCA 019 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2021)
Demonta Antonio Hall v. Wisconsin Department of Justice
2020 WI App 12 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2020)
State v. Mason
2018 WI App 57 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2018)
People v. Allman
2017 COA 108 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2017)
State v. Scott
2017 WI App 40 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2017)
People v. Campos
2015 COA 47 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2015)
State v. Moreno-Acosta
2014 WI App 122 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2014)
Clark v. State
981 A.2d 710 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2009)
Gheorghiu v. Commonwealth
671 S.E.2d 407 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2009)
State v. Baron
2008 WI App 90 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2008)
State v. Lis
2008 WI App 82 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2008)
State v. Meza
165 P.3d 298 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2007)
People v. Montoya
868 N.E.2d 389 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2007)
State v. Leyda
138 P.3d 610 (Washington Supreme Court, 2006)
State v. Peters
2003 WI 88 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2003)
Columbus Park Housing Corp. v. City of Kenosha
2002 WI App 310 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2002)
State v. Miller
2002 WI App 197 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2001 WI App 158, 633 N.W.2d 656, 246 Wis. 2d 802, 2001 Wisc. App. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ramirez-wisctapp-2001.