On Point blog, page 2 of 6
SCOTUS: That stuff we said about not usually sentencing juveniles to life without parole? Nevermind.
Jones v. Mississippi, USSC No. 18-1259, 2021 WL 1566605, April 22, 2021; Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
“In a case involving [sentencing] an individual who was under 18 when he or she committed a homicide [to life without parole], a State’s discretionary sentencing system is both constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient.” (Slip op. at 5) (emphasis added).
Appeals court affirms sentence aimed at deterring Amish from covering up child sexual assault
State v. Westley D. Whitaker, 2021 WI App 17, petition to review granted, 6/16/21, affirmed, 2022 WI 54; case activity (including briefs)
This appeal raises a hot-button issue likely to interest SCOW. Just last year an investigative journalist reported that Amish communities do not report sexual assaults of children to social workers or police. Parents and church elders strive to address the problem themselves. (NPR story). That’s what happened in Whitaker’s case. He repeatedly sexually assaulted his younger sisters then stopped when he was 14. His crimes went unreported until he was 25, well after he had left the Amish community. He pled to one count of 1st-degree child sexul assault and requested a “fines only” sentence. The circuit court found no risk that he would re-offend and no need for rehabilitation. Yet it imposed a prison sentence in order to “send a message” to the Amish community that this behavior is unacceptable and members need to report it.
“Order lifetime supervision” is enough said, given totality of sentencing remarks
State v. Shawn A. Anderson, 2019AP173-CR, District 3, 11/13/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court’s sentencing remarks considered in their entirety showed the court properly exercised its discretion in ordering Anderson to be subject to lifetime supervision under § 939.615.
Challenges to armed robbery conviction and sentence rejected, but sentence credit granted
State v. Sean N. Jones, 2018AP948-CR, District 3, 8/20/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Jones makes various challenges to his conviction and sentence for being to party to the crime of armed robbery. The court of appeals rejects all of his claims except the last one, involving sentence credit.
Ineffective assistance, multiplicity claims rejected
State v. Martez C. Fennell, 2017AP2480-CR, District 1, 3/26/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Fennell unsuccessfully challenges his convictions for armed robbery and operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent, arguing that the charges are multiplicitous and that trial counsel should have subpoenaed a witness who would have impeached the victim’s identification of him.
Sentencing challenges rejected
State v. Angela L. Staten, 2018AP1506-CR, District 1, 3/19/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Staten and her two co-defendants engaged in a course of tax fraud that netted them over $200,000 in tax refunds that didn’t belong to them. Staten, the first of the three sentenced, argues that her sentence was unduly harsh compared to her co-defendants’ sentences and that the sentencing court erroneously exercised its discretion in changing its mind at the very end and ordering prison rather than probation on two of the counts. The court of appeals rejects her challenges.
Sentencing court didn’t violate defendant’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination
State v. Marquis D. Walls, 2017AP1600-CR, District 1, 8/14/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects Walls’s argument that the circuit court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by pressuring him to admit guilt at sentencing and then used his failure to do so to impose a harsher sentence.
Does Gallion apply to a trial court’s decision to order sex offender registration?
State v. Timothy L. Landry, 2017AP1739-CR, 6/6/18, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Landry pled to 2 counts of 4th-degree sexual assault and was ordered to comply with §973.048(1m)(a), Wisconsin’s sex offender registry. On appeal, he argued that the trial court had not made the necessary findings or explained its decision adequately a la Gallion. He lost.
Sentencing judge didn’t need to give separate reasons for imposing fine
State v. Robert P. Vesper, 2018 WI App 31; case activity (including briefs)
Vesper complains that when he was sentenced for his 7th OWI offense the judge didn’t give a separate explanation for why it was imposing a fine in addition to prison time. Over a dissent, the court of appeals concludes the judge said enough to satisfy the (not at all exacting) standard of review for exercise of sentencing discretion. The court also rejects Vesper’s claim that the judge didn’t assess his ability to pay the fine.
Defense win! Court of appeals reverses circuit court’s denial of request for expunction
State v. Cheneye Leshia Edwards, 2017AP633-CR, 4/17/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity (including briefs).
Edwards entered a plea to disorderly conduct and asked the sentencing court to order expungement in the event he successfully completed probation. The court denied the request without explaining why. So Edwards filed a postconviction motion arguing that (1) the sentencing court erroneously exercised its discretion, and (2) the postconviction court had the inherent authority to grant expunction. The court of appeals reversed on (1) and declined to address (2).