On Point blog, page 6 of 10
Sentencing – Discretion – Victim Allocution
State v. Christina L. Contizano, 2011AP477-CR, District 4, 10/27/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Contizano: Robert C. Howard III; case activity
At Contizano’s sentencing for obstructing, based on lying to the police about her daughter’s location, the trial court didn’t erroneously exercise discretion in allowing Contizano’s ex-husband to advocate as a “victim” of the offense, in favor of a term of incarceration.
¶7 We conclude the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it considered the Walworths’ statements at sentencing.
Plea Bargain Breach: Prosecutorial Failure to Make Agreed IC-Recommendation not Material Breach
State v. Mark Allan Campbell, 2011 WI App 18; for Campbell: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; Campbell BiC; State Resp.; Reply
(Sentencing issue in the case discussed separately, here.)
Plea Bargain – Breach
The plea agreement required the prosecutor to recommend a 20-year sentence, comprised of 5-7 years’ confinement and the balance on extended supervision,
Plea Bargain – Prosecutorial Compliance
State v. Christopher Jones, 2009AP2761-CR, District 1, 9/28/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Jones: Jeremy C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The court rejects a claim of an “end-run” around the plea bargain, which limited the State’s recommendation to 10 years imprisonment while leaving the “configuration” of confinement and supervision to judicial discretion, based on prosecutorial comments:
- the “whole matter was “aggravated by the defendant’s record,”
State v. Robert L. Duckett, 2010 WI App 44
court of appeals decision; for Duckett: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Guilty Pleas – Breach – Lack of Contemporaneous Objection
Failure to object contemporaneously forfeits right of review of subsequently-asserted plea bargain breach. The issue therefore is reviewable only “in the context of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel,” ¶6.
The court is fond of making this pronouncement,
Issue Waiver: Jury Instruction – Failure to Object to Trial Court Response to Jury Question
State v. Christopher F. Becker, 2009 WI App 59, PFR filed 5/8/09
For Becker: Jeremy C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: By failing to object, defendant waived right to challenge judicial response to deliberating jury’s question, notwithstanding conceded unanimity problems in the response:
¶15 Nevertheless, we must agree with the State and hold that Becker waived his argument that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in answering the jury’s question in the manner it did.
“Forfeiture” (Compared to “Waiver”) of Right to Public Trial
State v. Dhosi J. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, affirming 2007 WI App 268
For Ndina: Richard L. Kaiser
Issue/Holding: (Generally:)
¶29 Although cases sometimes use the words “forfeiture” and “waiver” interchangeably, the two words embody very different legal concepts. “Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.”
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule – Generally, Authority to Ignore
State v. Benjamin D. Tarrant, 2009 WI App 121
For Tarrant: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶6 Waiver. Before addressing the merits, the State argues that Tarrant’s no contest plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, ¶54, 252 Wis. 2d 54, 643 N.W.2d 437.
Forfeited Issue: Deferred Prosecution Agreement Argument
State v. Chase E. Kaczmarski, 2009 WI App 117
For Kaczmarski: Harold L. Harlowe, David M. Gorwitz
Issue/Holding:
¶7 Forfeiture is a rule of judicial administration, and whether we apply the rule is a matter addressed to our discretion. [3] See Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons, 137 Wis. 2d 397, 417, 405 N.W.2d 354 (Ct. App. 1987).We generally do not consider arguments not raised in the circuit court.
Closing Argument – Reference to Defendant’s Failure to Testify
State v. Carmen L. Doss, 2008 WI 93, reversing 2007 WI App 208
For Doss: Robert R. Henak
Issue/Holding: Closing argument remarks addressed to Doss’s failure to explain missing funds did not amount to a comment on her failure to testify:
¶81 …
[F]or a prosecutor’s comment to constitute an improper reference to a defendant’s failure to testify,
Confrontation – Generally: Statements Made by Prosecutor and Judge in Transcript Read to Jury
State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: The present convictions stemmed from Jorgensen showing up for an otherwise unrelated hearing intoxicated; without objection, the prosecutor obtained admission of that hearing’s transcript, which the trial court read to the jury: is Jorgensen entitled to relief on the ground of violation of right to confrontation,