On Point: 36. Sentencing

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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Rivas: George Tauscheck; case activity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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Linssen: Thomas C. Simon; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Haiduk: Gary S. Cirilli; case activity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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Gayden: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity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,

State v. Charles Lamar, 2011 WI 50, affirming 2009 WI App 133; for Lamar: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Sentence Credit, Previously Imposed Sentence, § 973.04

Two concurrent sentences were initially imposed following guilty pleas to aggravated battery and misdemeanor bail jumping, both as repeater. The Agg Batt plea was withdrawn on postconviction motion, but the bail jumping wasn’t challenged.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thompson: Gregg H. Novack; case activity

Traffic Stop – Ordering Driver Out of Car

¶6        Thompson contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that the officer did not violate Thompson’s Fourth Amendment rights by ordering Thompson to get out of his car following the traffic stop.  This is how Thompson puts it in his brief:  “Mr. Thompson specifically argues that the Milwaukee Police Department had no legal right to order him from his vehicle.”  It is settled,