On Point blog, page 67 of 96
Sentencing – Factors – Harm to Victim: Threats While Case Pending, Inability to Attribute to Defendant
State v. Lawrence Payette, 2008 WI App 106, PFR filed 6/30/08
For Payette: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue: Whether threats made to the victims, while the prosecution was pending, to try to dissuade them from testifying were relevant to sentence despite absence of evidence linking threats to the defendant himself.
Holding:
¶41 The court process is a predictable consequence of conduct which results in a criminal charge.
Sentencing – Review – Articulation of Factors – Ruminations about Defendant’s Mental Health
State v. Stephen C. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57, PFR filed 4/16/08
For Sherman: John J. Grau
Issue/Holding: The sentencing court’s observations to the effect that the defendant was “a sick man” didn’t amount to “unsupported findings about his mental health:
¶14 At Sherman’s postconviction hearing, the court indicated that its comments did not reflect medical diagnoses, but were instead common sense observations based upon facts in the record.
Sentencing – Review – Articulation of Factors – Consideration of Sentences in Other, Similar Cases (Individualized Sentencing)
State v. Stephen C. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57, PFR filed 4/16/08
For Sherman: John J. Grau
Issue/Holding:
¶15 Sherman claims the only evidence about his mental health came from his expert, Dr. Gerald Wellens. Sherman claims the court failed to consider his expert’s opinion. However, at sentencing, the court expressly considered Wellens’ opinion. The court noted that Wellens only examined Sherman for a short period of time and that his perceptions of Sherman were plainly outweighed by contradictory testimony of people who were more familiar with Sherman.
Sentencing Guidelines – Failure to Consider – Harmless, Where Sentence Concurrent to Other, Unchallenged Sentence
State v. Stephen C. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57, PFR filed 4/16/08
For Sherman: John J. Grau
Issue/Holding: Sentencing failure to consider applicable guidelines, § 973.017(2)(a), was harmless error, at least where the controlling sentence was untainted by the error:
¶9 We conclude that the circuit court’s failure to consider the sentencing guidelines for the two Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2) counts was harmless error.
Enhancer – Proof: Timing (“Post-Trial”)
State v. Shane P. Kashney, 2008 WI App 164
For Kashney: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: While State v. Patrick A. Saunders, 2002 WI 107 limits proof of a repeater enhancement to the “post-trial” setting, that limitation is satisfied if the State submits the proof after verdict (and before the court has pronounced judgment).
¶1 In State v.
DNA Surcharge – Generally
State v. Ray Shawn Cherry, 2008 WI App 80
For Cherry: John T. Wasielewski
Issue/Holding:
¶5 The statutes governing this issue are clear. If a trial court sentences a defendant to a felony involving a sex crime contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.225, 948.02(1) or (2) 948.025, or 948.085, the trial court must order the defendant to pay the $250 surcharge for the DNA sample.
(Permissive) DNA Surcharge – Exercise of Discretion
State v. Ray Shawn Cherry, 2008 WI App 80
For Cherry: John T. Wasielewski
Issue: Whether the sentencing court properly exercised discretion in imposing a DNA surcharge, where it misconstrued such action as mandatory rather than permissive and ignored the defendant’s prior such assessment.
Holding:
¶9 We hold that in assessing whether to impose the DNA surcharge, the trial court should consider any and all factors pertinent to the case before it,
Allocution, Victim’s – Prohibiting Defendant from Looking at Victim
State v. Lawrence Payette, 2008 WI App 106, PFR filed 6/30/08
For Payette: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue/Holding:
¶51 The trial court, having just heard a lengthy description of Payette’s violent and abusive conduct toward RS, directed that Payette not look at his victim during her statement to the court, because, the trial court said, “I just don’t want him intimidating her.
Reconfinement – Lack of Authority to Consider CIP or ERP Eligibility
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;
Sentencing Review, Generally, Preserved by Postconviction Motion
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.