State v. Neill, 922 N.W.2d 861

On July 2, 2016, Charles L. Neill, IV was stopped after driving erratically; officers found an unrestrained one‑year‑old in the backseat and open beer; Neill's BAC was 0.353 and he had two prior OWI convictions.
Neill pled guilty to OWI as a third offense and was sentenced to prison (stayed), probation with a six‑month jail condition, and a fine of $4,800.
Two statutory penalty enhancers applied: (1) minor passenger under 16 doubles the applicable fines (WIS. STAT. § 346.65(2)(f)2.), and (2) BAC ≥ 0.25 quadruples the applicable fines (WIS. STAT. § 346.65(2)(g)3.).
The base minimum fine for a third OWI is $600; the trial court doubled that to $1,200 for the minor, then quadrupled the $1,200 to $4,800 for the excessive BAC.
Neill argued the enhancements should not be multiplicatively stacked: his reading would quadruple the base $600 to $2,400 (for BAC) and either add the doubled $1,200 (total $3,600) or apply only the BAC enhancer ($2,400). The trial court denied his postconviction motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Neill)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Proper method to calculate minimum fine when multiple OWI penalty enhancers apply	Each enhancer applies to the statutory base ($600); do not multiply stacked increases—quadruple $600 for BAC ($2,400) and, if additive, add doubled $600 ($1,200) for total $3,600; alternatively apply only BAC ($2,400)	Statute permits applying enhancers sequentially; trial court correctly applied minor enhancer first (doubling $600 → $1,200) then applied BAC enhancer to that increased minimum (quadrupling $1,200 → $4,800)	Affirmed: statute yields plain meaning that ‘‘applicable minimum’’ is altered by an enhancer, so once applied it becomes the base for any additional enhancers; $4,800 is correct
Whether the statute is ambiguous about stacking enhancers	Argues ambiguity should be resolved in favor of not stacking or only applying BAC enhancer to avoid multiplying penalties beyond base	State: may be ambiguous but trial court’s sequential application reflects permissible interpretation and legislative intent toward harsher penalties	Court: statute is not ambiguous under Kalal; plain reading shows multiple enhancers can apply and change the applicable minimum used for subsequent enhancer calculations

Roberts v. T.H.E. Ins. Co., 367 Wis.2d 386 (2016) (statutory‑interpretation standards govern review)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., 271 Wis.2d 633 (2004) (courts begin with plain statutory text and only consider ambiguity when text permits multiple reasonable meanings)
State v. Beasley, 271 Wis.2d 469 (2004) (multiple enhancers may normally be applied to same underlying crime)