On Point: 36. Sentencing

State v. Antonio M. Hall, 2007 WI App 168

For Hall: Michael D. Kaiser

Issue/Holding:

¶17   From our examination of these statutory provisions, we find no ambiguity in the relevant language and conclude that the provisions of Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01(3g), 973.01(3m) and 302.113(9)(am) express a clear intent to restrict the sentencing discretion of the reconfinement court at a reconfinement hearing;

State v. Vincent T. Grady, 2007 WI 81, affirming 2006 WI App 188
For Grady: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶14 n. 4:

The State contends that Grady waived the issues presented. Grady did not waive the issues presented because he filed a postconviction motion pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.30(2)(h). Filing a postconviction motion is a timely means of raising an alleged error by the circuit court during sentencing. 

State v. Vincent T. Grady, 2007 WI 81, reconsideration denied, 2007 WI 125, affirming 2006 WI App 188
For Grady: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶16 We first address whether Wis. Stat. § 973.017(10) precludes appellate review of a circuit court’s consideration of an applicable sentencing guideline pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.017(2)(a).

State v. Esteban Martinez, 2007 WI App 225
For Martinez: George Limbeck

Issue/Holding: A Wisconsin inmate paroled to serve sentence in another jurisdiction is not entitled to credit for that service against subsequently-revoked Wisconsin parole; State v. Rohl, 160 Wis. 2d 325, 466 N.W.2d 208 (Ct. App. 1991), followed and State v. Kevin Brown, 2006 WI App 41, distinguished:

¶16      Rohl subsequently filed a motion for sentence credit. 

State v. Terrill J. Hintz, 2007 WI App 113, (AG’s) PFR granted 9/11/07
For Hintz: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where an extended supervision hold is based at least in part on arrest on a new offense, § 973.115(1)(a) awards credit for time spent in custody under the hold against the sentence ultimately imposed for conviction of that offense.

Note that it does not matter that a signature bond was issued for the new offense:

¶11      Finally,

State v. Martin V. Yanick, Jr., 2007 WI App 30
Pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶1    … We conclude that, when a defendant has served conditional jail time and his or her probation is later revoked and the defendant commences serving an imposed and stayed sentence, the defendant is entitled to sentence credit for days spent in custody while in conditional jail time status, even if that custody is concurrent with service of an unrelated prison sentence.

State v. Twaun L. Gee, 2007 WI App 32
For Gee: Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding: The holding of State v. Brandon E. Jones, 2005 WI App 259, ¶13, that the reconfinement judge need not review the original sentencing transcript was overruled by State v. John C. Brown, 2006 WI 131, ¶38:

¶14   In Brown,

State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding: The rule of State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997) (conflict of interest where PSI author married to defendant’s prosecutor) does not extend to situation where PSI author is married to another probation agent and both are jointly supervising the defendant:

¶5       We do not believe that the same inherent bias exists in the relationship between two supervising probation agents. 

State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding: Thexton wasn’t entitled to Miranda warnings “at the time the PSI was being prepared”:

¶8        Thexton also claims that Streekstra violated his Fifth Amendment rights when he interviewed him during the investigation.  Thexton claims that Streekstra used the prior PSI as a basis for questioning him,

State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding: The agent’s use of a prior PSI during the interview of defendant for the current case did not trigger any additional right to counsel:

¶10      Thexton further argues that his right to counsel was violated because he was unable to consult with his attorney regarding the use of the prior PSI during the interview.