Background
On November 19, 2019, Hales Corners police found Aman Deep Singh asleep at the wheel of a stopped vehicle with the engine running. When officers approached and woke him, Singh slowly drove away, made several turns, traveled through a parking lot, and was ultimately stopped by police. Officers observed signs of intoxication and, after Singh refused field sobriety tests, his blood was drawn. At the time of his arrest, Singh was on release from custody in three pending misdemeanor OWI cases from 2017 and 2018, each with bond conditions prohibiting alcohol and controlled-substance use.
The State initially charged Singh with felony fleeing or eluding an officer, three counts of misdemeanor bail jumping (based on violations of bond conditions in the pending OWI cases), and felony OWI as a fifth or sixth offense. The case was significantly delayed by the pandemic, multiple changes of counsel, and judicial rotations. The felony OWI charge was later dismissed after the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Forrett established that prior implied-consent refusals could not be counted to enhance OWI penalties. The three underlying OWI cases were also dismissed without prejudice under Forrett.
On February 7, 2023, as part of a plea agreement, the State amended the felony fleeing charge to misdemeanor resisting an officer by failing to stop under WIS. STAT. § 346.04(2t). Singh pleaded guilty, the bail jumping charges were dismissed and read in for sentencing purposes, and he was sentenced to time served. Singh subsequently moved to withdraw his plea, arguing the amended misdemeanor charge was time-barred. The circuit court denied the motion, and Singh appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on all grounds. On the statute-of-limitations issue, the court held that the misdemeanor resisting charge arose from the same act as the original felony fleeing charge—Singh’s act of accelerating away from stopped officers responding to flashing emergency lights. Because no additional facts were required to support the misdemeanor charge beyond those already alleged for the felony, the statute of limitations was tolled under WIS. STAT. § 939.74(3) and State v. Pohlhammer, 78 Wis. 2d 516 (1977), from the time the felony was charged. Accordingly, the guilty plea was valid.
The court also rejected Singh’s argument that the original felony fleeing complaint was insufficient for failure to allege high-speed driving. The court found that neither the statute nor case law imposes a minimum speed requirement, and that Singh’s conduct—accelerating from a stop, making turns, and driving through a parking lot before being cut off—was sufficient to allege fleeing or attempting to elude an officer. On the bail jumping charges, the court held that dismissal of the underlying OWI cases under Forrett had no bearing on the completed bail jumping offenses, which required only proof that Singh was charged with a misdemeanor, released on bond, and intentionally violated bond conditions—all of which the admitted facts established.
Finally, the court declined to address Singh’s double jeopardy and issue preclusion arguments on the merits. Singh had waived his common law issue preclusion claim by entering a guilty plea, and his double jeopardy argument was deemed waived for failure to support it with citations to the record as required by WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(e).
Key Takeaways
- Under WIS. STAT. § 939.74(3), the statute of limitations for a lesser misdemeanor charge is tolled while prosecution for a felony based on the same act is pending—even if the misdemeanor is not formally charged until years later, as long as no additional facts are needed to prove it.
- Wisconsin’s felony fleeing statute has no minimum speed requirement; slow-speed evasive driving that includes turns and use of a parking lot can suffice to allege fleeing or attempting to elude an officer.
- Bail jumping charges are not invalidated by the subsequent dismissal of the underlying case—the offense is complete at the moment of the bond violation, regardless of what later happens to the predicate charges.
- A guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects, including constitutional claims such as double jeopardy, when the record is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a broad reading of Wisconsin’s tolling statute for lesser-included or same-act charges, giving prosecutors flexibility to amend felony charges down to misdemeanors as part of plea negotiations without running afoul of limitation periods—even in protracted cases delayed by factors outside their control. Defense counsel should be alert to the “same act” analysis early in a case, as the tolling window opens the moment a felony charge is filed and does not close simply because the State later offers a reduced charge.
The bail jumping holding is also significant for OWI practitioners navigating the post-Forrett landscape. Defendants who violated bond conditions in OWI cases that were later dismissed under Forrett cannot use that dismissal as a shield against bail jumping liability. The court’s reasoning confirms that bail jumping is assessed at the moment of the violation, not based on the ultimate disposition of the underlying charge.