State v. Benson, 822 N.W.2d 484

Benson crashed into Bukosky’s car while under the influence, killing Bukosky, her unborn child, and Courtney and injuring Deborah and Zachary; Benson was charged with multiple counts of homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle and related offenses.
Benson challenged the unborn-child homicide count as unconstitutional under equal protection, which the court denied.
Prior to sentencing, a pharmacology report (Gengo) stated Ambien levels in Benson’s blood, which Benson argues overstated impairment; the court relied on this in sentencing.
Benson was sentenced to substantial periods of confinement and supervision on each count, all consecutive.
Benson sought postconviction relief arguing the Ambien information was inaccurate and counsel ineffectively submitted the report without correction; the circuit court denied relief.
On appeal, Benson renews equal protection and sentencing challenges; the court addresses each and remands for a clerical correction to the amended judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Wis. Stat. § 939.75(2)(b)3. violate equal protection?	Benson argues the pregnant-woman exemption creates an unconstitutional disparity.	The groups are not similarly situated; a pregnant woman is different from Benson.	No equal protection violation; groups are meaningfully different.

Treiber v. Knoll, 135 Wis. 2d 58 (1987) (equal protection analysis requires similarly situated groups)
Lohmeier, 196 Wis. 2d 432 (Ct. App. 1995) (de novo review of constitutional challenges; strong presumption of validity)
Thiel, 188 Wis. 2d 695 (1994) (presumption of constitutionality; burden on challenger)
McManus, 152 Wis. 2d 113 (1989) (burden-shifting principles in constitutional challenges)
Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758 (1999) (ineffective assistance emphasis in postconviction context)
State v. Harris, 343 Wis. 2d 479 (2012) (forfeiture rules in ineffective-assistance analysis)