On Point blog, page 34 of 95
Plea withdrawal and ineffective assistance claims based on sentence credit error rejected
State v. Stephen Toliver, 2014AP2939-CR, 12/15/15, District 1 (not recommended for publication);case activity
Here, in Wisconsin’s very own Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, the court of appeals upholds the denial of Toliver’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the circuit court’s refusal to vacate his felony murder plea, and the circuit court’s denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Defendant not entitled to credit for custody in another case that was considered at sentencing
State v. David Aaron Piggue, Jr., 2016 WI App 13; case activity (including briefs)
Under State v. Floyd, 2000 WI 14, 232 Wis. 2d 767, ¶¶14-18, 25-27, 606 N.W.2d 155, a defendant is entitled to sentence credit for time in custody on charges that are dismissed and read-in for sentencing purposes. The court of appeals declines to extend Floyd to require credit for time the defendant was in custody on a charge for which he was acquitted, even though the acquitted conduct is used by a judge to fashion a sentence for a different crime.
Cecilia Klingele on evidence-based practices
UW Law Professor Cecilia Klingele just published “The Promises and Perils of Evidence-Based Corrections” in the Notre Dame Law Review. The article lays out the history of corrections reform, the emergence of evidence-based practices (including actuarial risk assessments), and cautions policymakers and practitioners about the potential for misuse of them. Click here to read the full […]
Exposé on sentencing disparity in Wisconsin: how harshly does your judge sentence?
GannettWisconsin.com has posted an extensive study of sentencing in Wisconsin during 2005-2014. Click here for “Scales of Justice or Roulette Wheel?” Investigative reporters extracted data from CCAP and created searchable databases that allow the user to see: (1) on a scale of 1 to 10 how harshly a particular judge sentences for certain crimes compared […]
Expunction: Not quite the “fresh start” that Hemp advertised
State v. Christopher Joseph Allen, 2015 WI App 96, petition for review granted 4/7/16, affirmed, 2017 WI 7; case activity (including briefs)
How often does SCOW issue unanimous decisions for the defense these days? Not too often. So you’d think that after being reversed 7-0 in State v. Hemp, District 1 might approach §973.015, with a “once bitten, twice shy” mindset. But with this published decision, D1 seems more determined to rein in Wisconsin’s expunction statute.
Evidentiary challenges spurned; ERP/CIP ineligibility upheld
State v. Tiron Justin Grant, 2014AP2965-CR, District 1, 11/24/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court serially takes up and rejects each of Grant’s challenges to his conviction, at trial, of possessing cocaine with intent to deliver, as well as the sentencing court’s denial of ERP/SAP and CIP eligibility.
Nichols v. United States, USSC No. 15-5238, cert. granted 11/6/15
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a) requires a sex offender who resides in a foreign country to update his registration in the jurisdiction where he formerly resided.
State v. Eric L. Loomis, 2015AP157-CR, certification granted 11/4/15
On review of a court of appeals certification; case activity
Issue (from certification)
Does a defendant’s right to due process prohibit a circuit court from relying on COMPAS assessments when imposing sentence, either because the proprietary nature of COMPAS prevents defendants from challenging the COMPAS assessment’s scientific validity, or because COMPAS assessments take gender into account.
State v. Salas Gayton, 2013AP646-CR, petition for review granted 11/4/15
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by the order granting review)
Whether a sentencing court may rely on a defendant’s illegal immigrant status as a factor in fashioning a sentence; and if such reliance is improper, whether it is structural error or subject to harmless error analysis.
Inmates serving bifurcated sentence for a misdemeanor may petition for sentence adjustment
State v. Jamie R. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92; case activity (including briefs)
Answering a question lingering since the Truth-in-Sentencing revisions that took effect in 2003 (TIS-II), the court of appeals holds that a person serving a bifurcated prison sentence for a misdemeanor enhanced under the repeater statute, § 939.62(1)(a), is eligible to petition for a sentence adjustment under § 973.195 after serving 75% of the confinement portion of the sentence.