On Point: 36. Sentencing

State v. Stephen Lehman, 2011AP2821-CR, District I (not recommended for publication).   Case activity.

Lehman pled guilty to 2 counts of burglary of a dwelling.  The trial court sentenced him to 5 years of initial confinement and 3 years of extended supervision for each count.  The court ran the sentences consecutively, ordered Lehman to pay $1,700 in restitution, and declared him ineligible for the Challenge Incarceration and Earned Release programs.  

State v. James A. Krahn, 2012AP1898-CR, District 2, 1/30/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Motion to dismiss second-offense OWI charge was properly denied, where the charge resulted from the state’s successful motion to reopen a conviction for a first offense that had been entered a few weeks after a conviction in another case that was also treated as a first offense:

¶6        Wisconsin trial courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction over second or subsequent drunk driving offenses tried as first offenses contrary to Wis.

State v. Richard Wade Shirley, 2012AP263-CR, District 1, 1/29/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Denial of fair trial – restraint of defendant during trial

Defendant forfeited claim that he was deprived of a fair trial because at least one juror saw he was shackled in the court room: “Not only does the record show that Shirley failed to strike the one juror that the record demonstrates saw the restraints,

State v. Manuel R. Williams, 2012AP357-CR, District 1, 1/29/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Terry stop – reasonable suspicion

Police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant where, based on suppression hearing testimony, circuit court found that: the officers were sent to a shooting in “a high risk area”; when police arrived, they noticed Williams because he had a big jacket on and was holding his hands in an “odd” way,

State v. John Doe, 2012AP414-CR, District 1, 1/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for sentence modification based on his assistance to law enforcement. The circuit court considered the factors established by State v. Doe, 2005 WI App 68, 280 Wis. 2d 731, 697 N.W.2d 101, for determining when post-sentencing assistance to law enforcement is a new factor,

State v. Jack Minniecheske, 2012AP1133, District 3, 1/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, not eligible for publication); case activity

 Because Wis. Stat.  § 950.04(1v)(m) gives victims the right to provide statements at sentencing, the circuit court properly considered a victim impact statement despite defendant’s objection to it as “frivolous” and his claim the victim stole his property. “Moreover, given Minniecheske’s sentence, a fine and costs, there is no indication in the record that the court sentenced Minniecheske more harshly because of the allegations in the victim impact statement.” (¶8).

State v. Scott B. Bohlinger, 2013 WI App 39; case activity

Bohlinger made a prima facie showing that two prior OWI convictions were invalid because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive the right to counsel due to his limited cognitive capabilities. The circuit court concluded he had not made such a showing because he did not allege any deficiency in the colloquies addressing the waiver of counsel in the earlier cases.

State v. Juan G. Gracia, 2013 WI 15; affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Warrantless Entry – “community caretaker” exception

Entry into Gracia’s bedroom by police, who had linked him to a serious traffic accident, was justified by the community caretaker doctrine because the police had an objectively reasonable basis to believe Gracia needed assistance, distinguishing State v.

State v. Verhagen, State v. Nickles,  State v. Van Asten, and State v. Bell, 2013 WI App 16; consolidated court of appeals decision; case activity: Verhagen; Nickles; Van Asten; and Bell

OWI – Use of first offense to enhance penalty

In a prosecution for a second or subsequent OWI offense, New Jersey v. Apprendi,

State v. Joseph L. Hernandez, 2012AP2148-CR, District 2, 2/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court properly found that Hernandez made a prima facie showing that a prior OWI conviction was invalid despite his poor recollection of details of the prior proceeding, distinguishing State v. Hammill, 2006 WI App 128, ¶11, 293 Wis. 654, 718 N.W.2d 747 (“a defendant who ‘simply does not remember what occurred at his plea hearing’ does not make a prima facie showing”):

¶10      Although this case somewhat resembles Hammill in that it involves a defendant’s less than perfect memory of the earlier proceedings and a sparse record,