On Point blog, page 389 of 484
Writs – Mandamus – Review of Denial of Judicial Substitution
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85
For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial
Issue/Holding:
¶15. A petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is an appropriate remedy to redress the denial of judicial substitution. See State ex rel. James L.J. v. Circuit Court for Walworth County, 200 Wis. 2d 496,
Ambiguity in Oral Pronouncement, Resolved by Written Judgment
State v. Edward W. Fisher, 2005 WI App 175
For Fisher: Eileen Miller Carter
Issue/Holding:
¶16 Fisher’s contentions grossly misrepresent the record. Assuming the court’s oral ruling contained some ambiguity, the written judgment of conviction and the conditions of extended supervision are crystal clear with respect to what conduct the conditions cover. See Jackson v. Gray, 212 Wis. 2d 436,
Sentencing – Review – Consecutive Sentences
State v. Lonnie C. Davis, 2005 WI App 98
For Davis: Pamela Moorshead
Issue/Holding:
¶24 Davis next contends that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it imposed consecutive sentences without an adequate explanation of why that was the minimum amount of time necessary. We reject this claim.¶25 The trial court explained why the maximum term was required in this case.
…
¶26 … The court must provide an explanation for the general range of the sentence imposed,
Sentencing Review – Consecutive Sentences – Unrelated Past Offenses
State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05
For Matke: James B. Connell
Issue/Holding:
¶17. Finally, Matke argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered, without explanation, that Matke’s present sentence be consecutive to any other sentences he was then serving. …
¶18. The sole infirmity that Matke cites is the court’s failure to specifically relate any of the sentencing factors it discussed to its decision to order the present sentence consecutive to,
Sentencing – Factors – Proof of, Generally
State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230
For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn
Issue/Holding: Wisconsin discretionary guideline regime is not governed by the holdings of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), ¶¶20-24. The latter cases are implicated only when a fact is utilized to support a sentence beyond the statutory maximum;
Sentencing Factors – Prior Juvenile Adjudications (Where Unrepresented)
State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230
For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn
Issue/Holding:
¶13 Montroy also argues that the PSI improperly included two of his juvenile adjudications, when there was no evidence that he was represented by counsel. [5] The State concedes that the Department of Corrections guidelines mandate that unrepresented juvenile adjudications should not be included in a PSI.
Sentencing Review – Factors – Public Protection
State v. Eduardo Jose Trigueros, 2005 WI App 112
For Trigueros: Eileen Miller Carter
Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised sentencing discretion by placing too much weight on the need to protect the public, by placing defendant on probation with one year in the House of Correction, on possession with intent to deliver one gram or less of cocaine, where the State sought a sentence of 38 months including 14 months’ initial confinement.
Sentencing Review – Factors – Youthfulness of Defendant
State v. Lonnie C. Davis, 2005 WI App 98
For Davis: Pamela Moorshead
Issue: Whether the sentencing court erroneously exercised discretion by failing to consider the defendant’s youthfulness (14 years 9 months) at the time he committed the sexual assaults.
Holding:
¶16 A review of the sentencing transcript demonstrates that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it sentenced Davis ….
Sentencing Review – Factors – Probation
State v. Eduardo Jose Trigueros, 2005 WI App 112
For Trigueros: Eileen Miller Carter
Issue/Holding:
¶8 Second, Trigueros claims that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion because it did not consider probation as an option. Again, we disagree. In each case, the sentence imposed shall “call for the minimum amount of custody or confinement which is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” McCleary,
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Adequate Investigation – Failure to Investigate Facts (Impeachment of Key Witnesses
State v. Jeannie M.P., 2005 WI App 183
For Jeannie M.P.: Michael Yovovich, Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Where counsel knew, or should have known, of evidence establishing possible motives for each of the two crucial State’s witnesses; and where adducing evidence of those motives would have been consistent with the chosen theory of defense, counsel’s failure to bring out that evidence at trial was deficient,