On Point blog, page 13 of 97
Global sentence under the max was neither unduly harsh nor unconscionable
State v. Paris Markese Chambers, 2019AP17-18-CR, 5/12/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The State charged 17 year old Chambers with 8 crimes involving car theft, damage to property, and bail jumping across two cases. His maximum sentence exposure was 29.5 years and a $75,000 fine. The trial court imposed a global sentence of 8.5 years of initial confinement and 13.5 years extended supervision. On appeal Chambers argued that his global sentence was harsh and unconscionable.
COA holds no speedy trial violation; most delays were attributable to defendant
State v. Ronald Eugene Provost, 2020 WI App 21; case activity (including briefs)
It’s unclear why this opinion is recommended for publication. Best guess is that is provides a (rather thin) gloss on the “systemic breakdown” exception to the rule that delays attributable to defense counsel don’t weigh in favor of a speedy trial violation. The court cites and adopts a statement from a New Mexico court that defense counsel’s delays represent a “systemic breakdown” only when they are caused by “problems that are both institutional in origin and debilitating in scope.” (¶40). Sounds like a slightly longer way of saying “systemic breakdown,” no?
Court of Appeals addresses a couple of common sentence credit issues
State v. Wyatt William Kontny, 2020 WI App 30; case activity (including briefs)
You’d think all the sentence credit issues would’ve been settled by now, but it’s not so! This case settles two of them.
SCOW rejects doctrine of sentence “advancement” when consecutive sentence is vacated
State v. Richard H. Harrison, Jr., 2020 WI 35, 4/17/20, reversing an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
Addressing an unusual issue that is now also effectively moot due to developments in the case since the cross petitions for review were granted, a majority of the supreme court holds that Harrison isn’t entitled to sentence credit or sentence “advancement” toward an earlier sentence for time spent in custody on a consecutive sentence that is later vacated.
SCOTUS replaces juvenile life without parole case
Jones v. Mississippi, USSC No. 18-1259, certiorari granted 3/9/20.
Question presented:
Whether the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencing authority to make a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.
On February 26th, SCOTUS dismissed Randall Mathena, Warden v. Lee Boyd Malvo, USSC No. 18-217, which raised the same issue. Jones is a replacement case for Malvo.
SCOW clarifies how to calculate OWI fines subject to multiple enhancers
State v. Charles L. Neill, IV, 2020 WI 15, 2/14/20, reversing a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
In this decision the supreme court explains how to calculate the minimum fine for an OWI when the fine is subject to multiple enhancer provisions. The supreme court’s calculation is better for defendants than the one arrived at by the court of appeals, though not the more favorable one advanced by Neill.
Lack of connection between custody and crime considered at sentencing dooms credit request
State v. Camron Rufus Spencer, 2019AP912-CR & 2019AP913-CR, District 1, 1/28/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including state’s brief)
Spencer’s custody leading up to his sentencing was not factually connected to the crimes for which he was sentenced, so he isn’t entitled to sentence credit for that time.
Restitution challenge forfeited
State v. Michael S. Coleman, 2019AP1999-CR, District 4, 1/30/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Coleman appealed the restitution ordered for the damage he did to a squad car by striking his head against the cage inside and kicking the door. (¶2). But his challenges are forfeited for failure to raise them in the circuit court.
COA: “Do you think that is a manly thing to do” didn’t reflect improper sentencing factor of gender
State v. Edward L. Body, Sr., 2019AP836, 1/22/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Body appeals the sentence he received after the revocation of his probation. He claims the circuit court erred in considering his gender and unproven allegations contained in the PSI. He also argues the sentence–one year in jail for a repeater disorderly conduct–is unduly harsh. The court of appeals rejects all three claims.
SCOW again can’t decide the law; declares truth unknowable; two votes missing
State v. Donavinn D. Coffee, 2020 WI 1, 1/9/20, 2017AP2292, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
Where to begin?