On Point: A. Allocution

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In a consequential appeal, COA holds that allocution statements are admissible evidence after a plea has been withdrawn.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. London Mack Stewart, 2013 WI App 86; case activity

Stewart was convicted of reckless injury, reckless endangerment, and felon in possession after he shot at and injured a police officer executing a warrant at a home where Stewart was staying. (¶2). Under the plea agreement the state agreed to recommend a “global” 25-year sentence (15 in, 10 out); the state did so, but the injured officer,

State v. Jack Minniecheske, 2012AP1133, District 3, 1/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, not eligible for publication); case activity

 Because Wis. Stat.  § 950.04(1v)(m) gives victims the right to provide statements at sentencing, the circuit court properly considered a victim impact statement despite defendant’s objection to it as “frivolous” and his claim the victim stole his property. “Moreover, given Minniecheske’s sentence, a fine and costs, there is no indication in the record that the court sentenced Minniecheske more harshly because of the allegations in the victim impact statement.” (¶8).

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Contizano: Robert C. Howard III; case activity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.  

State v. Lawrence Payette, 2008 WI App 106, PFR filed 6/30/08
For Payette: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding:

¶51      The trial court, having just heard a lengthy description of Payette’s violent and abusive conduct toward RS, directed that Payette not look at his victim during her statement to the court, because, the trial court said, “I just don’t want him intimidating her.

State v. Quantae T. Hines, 2007 WI App 39
For Hines: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: A defendant has a right to allocute during a reconfinement proceeding, the remedy for violation of which is resentencing, ¶¶18-20.

The outcome is largely controlled by State v. John C. Brown, 2006 WI 131, which held that reconfinement is essentially a sentencing proceeding.

State v. Jeremy D. Russ, 2006 WI App 9
For Russ: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: A deaf defendant who had been shackled when he entered a guilty plea and was sentenced must show actual inability to communicate effectively in order to meet his burden of showing a violation of rights. Thus, even though the defendant adduced expert proof at the postconviction hearing “that communication would be limited and difficult if a deaf person who used sign language were handcuffed,” he did not meet his burden of proof:

¶10      As the trial court observed,

State v. Steven A. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26
For Harvey: Christopher William Rose

Issue/Holding: Plea bargain, which permitted State to comment on facts but not to make specific sentencing recommendation was not violated by State’s presentation of victim and others who themselves asked for maximum penalty:

¶40      We first disagree that the State breached the plea agreement by going beyond factual argument with its comments about evidence it would have introduced had there been a trial.

State v. Rudolph L. Jackson, 2004 WI App 132, PFR filed 6/15/04
For Jackson: Andrea Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the prosecutor violated an agreement not to make a specific sentencing recommendation by expressing outrage at recommendations proffered on Jackson’s behalf and by urging the court to take into account the deterrent effect of its sentence.

Holding:

¶14. Jackson contends that the prosecutor breached the plea negotiation as his statements constituted an “end-run”

State v. Rodney K. Stenseth, 2003 WI App 198, PFR filed 9/2/03
For Stenseth: Robert A. Ferg

Issue: Whether violation of the defendant’s right to be present at resentencing (occasioned by the original sentence exceeding the maximum allowable period of confinement) is subject to harmless error analysis.

Holding:

¶16. Wisconsin Stat. § 971.04(1)(g) provides that a defendant shall be present “[a]t the pronouncement of judgment and the imposition of sentence.”