On Point blog, page 17 of 96
Failure to object during sentencing hearing to court’s consideration of information means the issue is forfeited
State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2017AP2265-CR, District 3, 11/6/2017 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 5/14/19, modified and affirmed, 2020 WI 12, ; case activity (including briefs)
At Counihan’s sentencing, the circuit court announced it had researched the outcomes in other cases with similar charges and then used that information in sentencing Counihan to jail time. Counihan moved for resentencing, arguing the circuit court violated due process because she didn’t have notice it had collected information about other cases or the opportunity to address the information at sentencing. The court of appeals holds the claim is forfeited because trial counsel didn’t object at the sentencing hearing. It also holds trial counsel’s failure to object wasn’t prejudicial.
Judge’s answer to jury question in absence of defendant and counsel was harmless error
State v. Deshawn Harold Jewell, 2017AP2503-CR, 10/30/18. District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Jewell claims that he is innocent of armed robbery, so his identity was an issue at trial. During deliberations, the jury asked the trial court for the “six pack” of pictures of people who appeared in the police photo array that the victim used to identify him. They also asked a question about how the photos were numbered. Jewell and his lawyer were not present and had no input into the answer.
Restitution awards based on victims’ say-so affirmed
State v. Damien Farold Robinson, 2018AP259-CR, District 1, 10/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Robinson challenges some of the restitution ordered to reimburse two burglary victims for repairing the damage caused by Robinson’s forcible entry. The court rejects his arguments that there was insufficient evidence about the costs of repair and the reasonableness of the costs.
Sentencing court assures defendant: “You can ask for expunction later.” Court of appeals says: “No, you can’t”
State v. Kole R. Eichinger, 2017AP1845-1847-CR, 10/16/18, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This case highlights an expunction issue that SCOW still needs to resolve. Prior to 2014, circuit courts often delayed deciding expunction until they saw how a defendant did on probation. State v. Matasek, 2014 27, 353 Wis. 2d 601, 846 N.W.2d 811 changed that practice. It clarified that courts must decide whether to order expunction at the time of sentencing. What about all of the defendants who were expressly told at sentencing that they could apply for expunction after they completed probation?
Counsel not ineffective for failing to object to vouching at trial and impermissible factors at sentencing
State v. Kenneth Alexander Burks, 2018AP208-CR, 9/25/18, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals held that an officer’s testimony that another witnesses’s testimony was “very believable” did not qualify as “vouching” when considered in context. It also held that the circuit court did not impermissibly rely on its own comments about the opioid epidemic, addiction, and the medical and pharmaceutical industries when it sentenced Burks. Thus, his lawyer was not ineffective when he failed to object to these alleged errors.
Challenges re right to self-representation and domestic abuse assessment fail on appeal
State v. Sandra D. Solomon, 2018AP298-CR, 9/25/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Solomon sought plea withdrawal arguing that the circuit court had denied her request to represent herself and insisted on proceeding with the scheduled trial date, so her newly-retained lawyer was not prepared to defend her. The court of appeals held that her invocation of this right was not clear and unequivocal. It also held that the domestic abuse assessment clearly applied to this case.
Challenges to juvenile’s life sentence rejected
State v. Jevon Dion Jackson, 2017AP712, District 1, 8/28/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions holding that the Eighth Amendment limits the imposition of life sentences on juveniles, Jackson argues he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing or sentence modification. The court of appeals concludes Jackson’s sentence is constitutional.
Bomb scare adjudication upheld, but restitution order reversed in part
State v. J.P., 2017AP1905, District 1, 9/5/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.P. was adjudicated delinquent for calling in two bomb scares to his high school. The court of appeals rejects his claims that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and unlawfully searched his phone and that his confession was involuntary. However, the court agrees with J.P. that part of the restitution order is invalid.
Court upholds convictions for multiple counts of sending unlawful emails, bail jumping
State v. Brian A. Barwick, 2017AP958-CR through 2017AP961-CR, District 1, 9/5/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Barwick was charged with eleven counts of various crimes in four separate cases that were consolidated for trial. He makes various unsuccessful challenges to his convictions.
Denial of plea withdrawal, sentence modification and postconviction discovery affirmed
State v. Darrick L. Bennett, 2016AP2209-CR, 9/18/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Bennett was charged with 1st degree intentional homicide, but pled guilty to 1st degree reckless homicide. In a decision turning on facts specific to this case, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision denying (a) plea withdrawal without a hearing, (b) sentence modification based on a new factors, and (c) postconviction discovery of evidence that might have affected his sentence.