On Point: 36. Sentencing

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Christopher P. Kawleski v. State, 2022AP1129, 7/3/25, District IV, (recommended for publication); case activity

COA recommends publication in a case addressing how to calculate the maximum discharge date for a defendant sentenced to a bifurcated sentence on a felony between 1999 and 2003 upon release from reconfinement after extended supervision was revoked.

State v. C.J.L.,  2024AP1917, 7/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

C.J.L. contests part of the restitution ordered in his juvenile case related to a theft and break in at a dance studio–restitution for a surveillance subscription purchased after the theft, and for damages to the studio’s dance floor. Because the juvenile statute, Wis. Stat. § 938.34(5)(a), permits restitution for physical injury to a person or damage to property only, the COA agrees with C.J.L. and reverses the restitution order.

Curtis L. Walker v. Dan Cromwell, No. 23-2240, 6/16/25

Despite making a “strong case for relief” that his de-facto life sentence for a homicide committed when he was 17 violated the Eighth Amendment, the Seventh Circuit held that Curtis Walker’s habeas petition could not overcome the heavy burden imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to show that the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court because the Court’s precedents were not “a model of clarity.”

State v. Scott R. Dachelet, 2023AP970, 6/25/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

Wisconsin’s seemingly straightforward sentence credit statute – Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(a) – is required to accommodate an infinite variety of scenarios.  Here, the COA addressed whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit on a withheld sentence where probation was revoked while also receiving credit for an imposed and stayed sentence that was revoked.  Because lifting the stay on the imposed and stayed sentence severed the connection between the defendant’s custody and the case for which his sentence was withheld, the Court found that he was not entitled to dual sentence credit.

State v. Benny Burgos, 2024AP1497-CR, 6/3/25, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In an interesting appeal presenting questions of statutory construction and appellate jurisdiction, COA uses principles of equity to reach the merits and reverses in Burgos’s favor.

State v. Daniel J. Rejholec, 2023AP2192-CR, 5/28/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In a consequential appeal, COA holds that allocution statements are admissible evidence after a plea has been withdrawn.

State v. Daecorion J. Robinson, 2022AP2087-CR, 5/28/25, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In a rare “causal nexus” win, 2 judges in D1 agree that the circuit court’s order was infirm. Under the text of the restitution statute, Robinson’s aiding a felon does not make him liable for the consequences of that felon’s underlying criminal conduct.

State v. Eric J. Joling, 2023AP1023-CR, 12/11/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

Federal law prohibits subjecting social security disability insurance payments (SSDI) to “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.”  42 U.S.C. § 407(a).  In a decision recommended for publication, the Court of Appeals held that a circuit court may nevertheless use a defendant’s SSDI payments to calculate the ability to pay restitution. 

State v. Lynetta Lake, 2024AP115-CR, 11/12/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Lake pleaded guilty to negligent operation of a motor vehicle and hit and run of an attended vehicle. Following a hearing, the circuit court ordered restitution. Lake filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call two witnesses during the restitution hearing.

State v. Thatcher R. Sehrbrock, 2022AP2153-CR, 8/8/24, District IV (authored); case activity

Sehrbrock, convicted of robbery with use of force as PTAC, appeals the judgment of conviction and order denying his postconviction motion in which he challenged a condition of probation requiring that an ignition interlock device be installed on any motor vehicle that he owns or operates. He argued that the IID condition was unreasonable and its term was harsh and excessive. The COA affirms in a 2-1 decision.