On Point: 36. Sentencing

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 to other judges in his/her county and in the state, (2) the average sentences imposes for certain types of crime,

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.

State v. Tiron Justin Grant, 2014AP2965-CR, District 1, 11/24/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.

Question presented:

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.

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.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)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.

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.

State v. Mendell Stokes, 2015AP1335-CR, District 2, 11/4/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Applying State v. Spaeth, 206 Wis. 2d 135, 556 N.W.2d 728 (1996), the court of appeals holds the record provided “competent proof” that Stokes was operating after revocation for a prior OWI offense and, thus, was subject to criminal penalties instead of a civil forfeiture, § 343.44(1)(b) and (2)(ar)2.

State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2015 WI App 88, petition for review granted, 3/7/16, affirmed, 2017 WI 15; case activity (including briefs)

Addressing a question left open by State v. Radaj, 2015 WI App 50, 363 Wis. 2d 633, 866 N.W.2d 758, the court of appeals holds that the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws does not bar the mandatory imposition of a DNA surcharge for a single felony conviction based on conduct that was committed before the mandatory DNA surcharge requirement took effect.

State v. Courtney E. Sobonya, 2015 WI App 86; case activity (including briefs)

Sobonya launched a creative challenge to the denial of her §973.015 request for expungement.  The court had held that while she would benefit from expungement, society would be harmed by the reduced deterrent effect of her sentence.  So Sobonya moved for sentence modification based on an expert report showing that the public safety is best served by removing the barriers that convicted offenders face when trying to reintegrate into society.