State v. Dennis Brantner, 939 N.W.2d 546

While exiting a Kenosha County courthouse, Dennis Brantner was arrested on a Fond du Lac County homicide warrant and transported in handcuffs (belly belt) to the Fond du Lac County jail for booking.
During intake in Fond du Lac, Brantner removed his boots; a deputy found a bag with 54 pills in his left boot (including thirty-five 20 mg oxycodone pills and two 5 mg oxycodone pills).
The State charged five possession counts (one per drug/dosage) and paired felony bail-jumping counts, the jury convicted on all counts, and Brantner was sentenced.
Postconviction, Brantner argued (1) venue was improper in Fond du Lac because arrest in Kenosha terminated his possession, and (2) the two oxycodone counts (20 mg and 5 mg) were multiplicitous.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed venue (possession may be proven by actual physical control or control via intent/authority) but held the two oxycodone counts were multiplicitous, vacated one oxycodone conviction, and remanded for the circuit court to decide whether resentencing is necessary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brantner)	Held
Venue: where possession occurred	Venue proper in Fond du Lac because possession can exist when defendant knowingly had actual physical control or area-control with intent to exercise control; Brantner removed and handed over the boot in Fond du Lac.	Arrest in Kenosha deprived Brantner of control over items on his person, so his last possession occurred in Kenosha and he was entitled to trial there.	Held for State: Fond du Lac was proper. Possession requires knowledge plus either actual physical control or control over an area with intent to exercise control; Brantner exhibited both (delaying removal, removing boot, handing it to deputy; he could also have asked officers to remove boot).
Multiplicity: two oxycodone counts (20 mg vs. 5 mg)	Counts represent separate volitional acts or separate acquisitions and thus are distinct in fact, permitting cumulative charges.	The statute punishes possession of oxycodone irrespective of dosage; charging for different dosages is multiple prosecutions for the same offense.	Held for Brantner: Counts are identical in law and, on the record, identical in fact under the elements-only (Blockburger) test; presumption against cumulative punishments unrebutted — counts multiplicitous. Vacatur of the duplicative oxycodone count and remand for the circuit court to consider resentencing.

Schwartz v. State, 192 Wis. 414, 212 N.W. 664 (1927) (possession requires control/dominion with knowledge)
State v. Peete, 185 Wis. 2d 4, 517 N.W.2d 149 (1994) (Wisconsin possession instruction and consistent statutory meaning)
State v. Dombrowski, 44 Wis. 2d 486, 171 N.W.2d 349 (1969) (State must prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (elements-only test for same offense)
State v. Ziegler, 342 Wis. 2d 256, 816 N.W.2d 238 (2012) (multiplicity framework and presumption against cumulative punishment)
State v. Multaler, 252 Wis. 2d 54, 643 N.W.2d 437 (2002) (when offenses are separate in time or nature)
State v. Davison, 263 Wis. 2d 145, 666 N.W.2d 1 (2003) (legislative intent can authorize cumulative punishments)
Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980) (interpretation of same-offense and cumulative punishment principles)