On Point: 36. Sentencing

State v. Shaun R. Ezrow, 2016AP1611-CR, 5/25/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The cost a business incurred in enhancing its security system after an employee stole money was a proper item of restitution under § 973.20.

State v. Shawn W. Forgue, 2016AP2414-CR, 5/11/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Forgue, convicted of misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct, appealed the circuit court’s decision to exclude evidence of the victim’s prior violent conduct toward him (i.e. McMorris evidence) and her other bad acts. He also appealed an order setting restitution at $269.50 for the victim’s lost wages and $1,000 to the Crime Victim Compensation Program.

State v. Loomis has made the NYTimes again. See today’s article by Adam Liptak: Sent to Prison by Software’s Secret Algorithms.

State v. Sambath Pal, 2017 WI 44, 4/28/17, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition, 2015AP1782-CR; case activity (including briefs)

Driver crashes into group of motorcyclists, kills one, mortally injures a second, flees the scene, and eventually pleads guilty to 2 counts of hit and run resulting in death contrary to §346.67(1). He’s sentenced to 2 consecutive terms of 10 years IC and 10 years ES. Questions Presented: Did driver commit 1 offense or 2? And is his sentence unduly harsh?

State v. Julieann Baehni, 2015AP2263-CR, 4/27/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Baehni was charged with OWI, fourth offense. In the circuit she unsuccessfully sought to have the blood draw test results suppressed because she wasn’t given the alternative test she requested. She also collaterally attacked two of her prior convictions, likewise without success. The court of appeals affirms.

State v. Kyle Lee Monahan, 2014AP2187, 4/27/17, District 4 (not recommended for publication) review granted 11/13/17; Affirmed 6/29/18; case activity (including briefs)

Kyle Monahan was convicted of OWI homicide after a jury trial. The trial court excluded evidence offered to show that Monahan was not, in fact, driving the vehicle when it crashed. On appeal, the state agrees with Monahan that the evidence should have come in, but argues that its exclusion was harmless. The court of appeals agrees with the state.

State v. J.J.S., 2016AP1519, 4/25/17, District 3 (1-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity

The case appears to be an issue of first impression: Whether §938.34(5)(c), which provides that juveniles under 14 can’t be required to pay more than $250 in restitution, refers to the juvenile’s age when the State filed the delinquency petition or the juvenile’s age at the time of disposition. The court of appeals, choosing the time of disposition, upholds the $1,600 restitution award against J.J.S., even though he was just 13 when the filed its petition.

Nelson v. Colorado, USSC No. 15-526, (April 20, 2017), reversing and remanding Colorado v. Nelson, 364 P.3d 866 (2015); SCOTUSblog page (inlcuding links to briefs and commentary).

This decision establishes that a State cannot force an exonerated defendant to file a civil suit and prove his innocence by clear and convincing evidence in order to recover costs, fees, and restitution he paid upon conviction.

This week Wired ran an op-ed arguing that courts should stop using algorithms to set bail and sentence defendants until some ground rules are set. Yes, it discusses Compas and State v. Loomis. But beyond that it describes what could happen if courts move from using simple algorithms to using deep learning algorithms known as neural networks to sentence someone. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Consider a scenario in which the defense attorney calls a developer of a neural-network-based risk assessment tool to the witness stand to challenge the “high risk” score that could affect her client’s sentence.

State v. Thomas G. St. Peter, 2016AP683-CR, District 1, 4/18/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

St. Peter is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the judge violated his due process rights when it relied on inaccurate information to jump the parties’ joint recommendation for time served and impose more jail time. State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1 (sentencing based on inaccurate information violates due process). Not only that, but the judge erroneously exercised his sentencing discretion by failing to link the relevant facts and factors of the case to the standard sentencing objectives. —And you thought an erroneous exercise of sentencing discretion was as mythical a beast as a unicorn!