On Point: 36. Sentencing

State v. Aaron Deal, 2010AP1804-CR, District 1, 9/20/11 

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Deal: James A. Rebholz; case activity

Counsel’s refusal to argue to the jury that it should return a guilty verdict on felony murder, submitted as a lesser offense option of first-degree intentional homicide, wasn’t deficient in light of the defendant’s insistence on an all-or-nothing strategy.

¶8        At the Machner hearing,

State v. Burt Terrell Johnson, Jr., 2010AP2654-CR, District 1, 9/13/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Johnson: Sara Heinemann Roemaat; case activity

Counsel did not perform deficiently.

1. Decision not to make opening statement was reasonable strategy, given that the defense didn’t plan to call any witnesses but instead intended “to put the State to its proof,” ¶21.
2. Failure to object to State’s closing argument characterizing what the victim “saw”

State v. Guadalupe Jose Rivas, 2010AP2777-CR, District 1, 9/13/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Rivas: George Tauscheck; case activity

¶5        Rivas argues that four instances of inaccurate information mentioned by the trial court at his sentencing require resentencing:  (1) the trial court believed that Rivas had five prior felonies when he had only four; (2) the trial court mischaracterized Rivas as a drug dealer;

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Linssen: Thomas C. Simon; case activity

Sentence Review – Harsh & Excessive 

Sentence to maximum term of confinement for felony theft and forgery wasn’t harsh and excessive, notwithstanding lack of prior criminal record.

¶23      Linssen has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the sentencing court relied on improper factors, see Harris,

State v. Thomas J. Haiduk, 2011AP551-CR, District 3, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Haiduk: Gary S. Cirilli; case activity

In determining restitution for home improvement-related theft, the trial court failed to resolve whether the underlying contract was fixed-price or time-and-materials, therefore remand is necessary.

¶22      The court’s value-based $100,517.96 offset, and corresponding $35,877.33 restitution award, only includes an offset for the costof Haiduk’s materials,

State v. Joseph Gayden, 2010AP2360-CR,District 1, 8/30/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Gayden: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

The difference between Wis JI-Criminal 800 and 805 is that the latter limits the defendant’s intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to reasonable belief that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

State v. Jeffrey D. Knickmeier, 2011AP368-CR, District 4, 11/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

The court upholds the sentence – 2, concurrent 6-month jail terms for theft by bailee – of disbarred attorney Knickmeier. The court patiently discusses each of Knickmeier’s challenges to sentencing discretion (some of which, to be blunt, seem frivolous), and concludes:

¶12      In summary,

State v. Orbin B. Harris, 2011 WI App 130 (recommended for publication); for Harris: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

Good-time credit may not be earned on a  jail sentence for a violent offense being served in prison:

¶1       Orbin B. Harris appeals the judgment convicting him of battery and intimidation and the order denying his postconviction motion.  Harris, who was sentenced to ten months in the house of correction for the battery and to seven years in state prison for the intimidation,

DOC v. Warren Lilly, Jr., 2011 WI App 123 (recommended for publication); case activity

¶2        The primary issues we address on this appeal and their resolution are as follows:

I.                   In light of Saenz, what is the correct legal standard for the showing DOC must make to obtain a court order continuing to authorize the forced feeding of an inmate?[1]

We conclude that in this situation DOC must show that: (1) if forced feeding is withdrawn,

seventh circuit decision

Cruel and Unusual Punishment – Prison Inmates, Denial of Treatment for Gender Identity Disorder

Section 302.386(5m) (2010), which categorically bars hormonal therapy or sexual reassignment surgery to prison inmates, violates the 8th amendment.

“Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when they display ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’ ” Greeno v. Daley,