On Point blog, page 53 of 95
Sentence Credit, § 973.155
State v. Daryl J. Teska, 2011AP1010-CR, District 2, 3/14/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Teska: John E. German; case activity
Teska was originally placed on probation, sentences withheld, on 3 counts; jail time as a condition of probation was ordered as to 1 count. Probation was later revoked and although all 3 of sentences were imposed concurrently, credit for the time spent in jail as a condition of probation was allocated only to that particular count.
Conspiracy to Commit Theft by Fraud, §§ 939.31, 943.20(1)(d): Value of Stolen Property:Sufficiency of Evidence; Sentencing: Accurate Information – Partial Acquittal
State v. Matthew R. Steffes, 2012 WI App 47 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 10/16/12; for Steffes: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity
Conspiracy to Commit Theft by Fraud, §§ 939.31, 943.20(1)(d) – Sufficiency of Evidence
Evidence held sufficient to sustain Steffes’ conviction for conspiracy to commit theft by fraud, based on his participation in a prisoners’ “burn-out” telephone scam.
Sex Offender Registration § 301.45 – Homeless Registrant
State v. William Dinkins, Sr., 2012 WI 24, affirming 2010 WI App 163; for Dinkins: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; note: the court affirms the mandate (reversal of conviction and dismissal of charge), but “upon a different rationale,” ¶63; the net effect is, “affirmed, as modified“
Although homelessness is not in and of itself a defense to prosecution for failing to register as a sex offender,
Issue Preclusion – OWI Enhancer; Foreign Conviction; Collateral Attack
State v. Michael A. Imbruglia, 2011AP1373-CR, District 2, 2/8/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Imbruglia: Rick Ramirez; case activity
In circuit court, Imbruglia successfully challenged use of a Colorado conviction as an OWI enhancer (on the ground that statute isn’t “substantially similar” to Wisconsin’s). However, after another OWI arrest the very next day, the State reasserted that same conviction to enhance the new charge.
Sentence Review: New Factor – Substantial Assistance to Law Enforcement
State v. Anthony C. Boyden, 2012 WI App 38 (recommended for publication); for Boyden: Rex Anderegg; case activity
Information provided by Boyden before his sentencing, which didn’t bear fruit until much later, supported a new factor-based request for sentence modification. State v. Doe, 2005 WI App 68, 280 Wis. 2d 731, 697 N.W.2d 101, followed.
¶14 Boyden’s motion for sentence modification addresses in detail the factors set forth in Doe.
Sentencing Enhancer – Proof
State v. Christopher J. Holan, 2011AP1717-CR, District 3, 1/31/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Holan: Martha K. Askins; case activity
Holan’s admission to his prior felony conviction satisfied § 973.12(1); the court rejects his argument that the record must show his knowledge that he faced increased punishment because of the prior conviction:
Sentencing Review
State v. Frederick W. Scheuers, 2011AP1709-CR, District 2, 1/11/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Scheuers: Jeffrey Mann; case activity
Sentence of 7 months for criminal damage to property, upheld as proper exercise of discretion.
¶9 Scheuers acknowledges that the trial court “took into account and properly stated on the record what [it] believed was an appropriate response in addressing the needs for protecting the public,
Sentencing Review: New Factor – Assistance to Law Enforcement – Reduced Threat – Adolescent Brain Development Research
State v. Demian Hyden McDermott, 2012 WI App 14 (recommended for publication); for McDermott: Robert R. Henak, Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity
Sentencing Review – New Factor – Assistance to Law Enforcement
McDermott, convicted in 1991 of first-degree intentional homicide, ptac with a parole eligibility date of 35 years, seeks new-factor-based modification of his PED on the ground “he helped law enforcement by participating in prison programs designed to dissuade youth from crime.”
“Utter Disregard” Element (Reckless Homicide, § 940.02(1)): Sufficient Proof (High-Speed Auto Collision); Discovery: Rebuttal Computer Simulation; Evidentiary Foundation / Probative Value: Computer Simulation
State v. Anrietta M. Geske, 2012 WI App 15 (recommended for publication); for Geske: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Sufficiency of Proof – “Utter Disregard” Element (Reckless Homicide, § 940.02(1))
Evidence held sufficient to support reckless homicide element of utter disregard of human life, where deaths resulted from high-speed automobile collision after running red light, notwithstanding undisputed evidence that Geske swerved her car in an attempt to avoid the collision.
State v. Juan G. Gracia, 2011AP813-CR, District 2, 12/28/11, rev. granted 5/14/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Gracia: Tracey A. Wood; case activity; petition for review granted 5/14/12
Warrantless Entry – Community Caretaker
Entry into Gracia’s bedroom by police, who had linked him to a serious traffic accident, was justified by the community caretaker doctrine; State v. Ultsch, 2011 WI App 17, 331 Wis. 2d 242,