On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Christopher Kaczynski, 2002 WI App 276, PFR filed 11/20/02
For Kaczynski: Eugene Kaluzny

Issue/Holding: Sentence of 10 years, where the conduct would have supported charges carrying 45 years, isn’t harsh. ¶13.

State v. Christopher Kaczynski, 2002 WI App 276, PFR filed 11/20/02
For Kaczynski: Eugene Kaluzny

Issue/Holding:

¶9. It has long been the law in Wisconsin that, unless a defendant’s rights against self-incrimination are implicated (and Kaczynski makes no claim that they are), it is “entirely proper” for a trial court “to consider on sentencing, the defendant’s cooperativeness as manifested by his refusal to name his accomplices.” 

State v. Eric S. Fenz, 2002 WI App 244
For Fenz: Jacob W. Gobel

Issue: Whether the sentencing court may take into account the amount of jail credit to be awarded, in the narrow instance where the court wants to assure a term of imprisonment sufficiently lengthy to allow exposure to a treatment program.

Holding:

¶10. Fenz argues that Klimas and Struzik established a “bright line”

State v. Aaron O. Schreiber, 2002 WI App 75, PFR filed 3/12/02
For Schreiber: William J. Donarski

Issue/Holding: The sentencing court properly considered the three primary sentencing factors — gravity of offense, defendant’s character, need to protect public — and the weight assigned each is delegated primarily to the trial court. (Schreiber’s argument that the sentencing court shouldn’t have considered his gang affiliation, because he’d already been punished for that by having his probation revoked,

State v. Michael A. Grindemann,  2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding: A sentence well within the maximum (here, 44 years out of a possible 110) is presumptively not unduly harsh. ¶¶29-33.

State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02
For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Trial court disclaimer (via postconviction ruling) of reliance on information challenged as inaccurate isn’t binding: rather, appellate court “may independently review the record to determine the existence of any such reliance.” ¶¶27-28. Here, the record shows that this disclaimer “was, at least in part,

State v. Kirk J. Bergquist, 2002 WI App 39
For Berhquist: Steven H. Gibbs

Issue: Whether the state’s refusal to return guns valued at between $5000 and $7,150, following conviction for disorderly conduct, violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause.

Holding:

¶8. Although the term “forfeiture” does not appear in this statute, our supreme court has recognized that the result of refusing to return a weapon to a person who committed a crime using the weapon is a forfeiture.

State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02
For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶22. A defendant who asks for resentencing because the court relied on inaccurate information must show both that the information was inaccurate and that the court relied on it. Id. The defendant carries the burden of proving both prongs-inaccuracy of the information and prejudicial reliance by the sentencing court-by clear and convincing evidence.

State v. Bernard G. Tainter, 2002 WI App 296, PFR filed 12/23/02

Issue/Holding:

¶14. Wisconsin Const. art. I, § 7, grants criminal defendants the right to a trial “by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the offense shall have been committed; which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” Tainter claims this provision conflicts with Wis. Stat. § 980.02(4) and (5),

State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195
For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue: Whether a probation and parole agent was properly allowed to give an opinion regarding the likelihood of the respondent reoffending.

Holding:

¶29. The fact that Kittman was not a psychologist or mental health specialist did not preclude his testimony. Under Wis. Stat. § 907.02 (1997-98), relevant experience,