On Point blog, page 72 of 96
Sentencing Review – Factors – TIS, pre-Gallion – Generally
State v. Germaine M. Taylor, 2006 WI 22, affirming unpublished summary order
For Taylor: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶17 The standards governing appellate review of an imposed sentence are well settled. [9] A circuit court exercises its discretion at sentencing, and appellate review is limited to determining if the court’s discretion was erroneously exercised.
…
¶27 All told,
Sentencing Review – Factors – TIS – Probation as 1st Alternative
State v. Steven A. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26
For Harvey: Christopher William Rose
Issue/Holding:
¶47 Harvey correctly states Gallion’s teaching that probation should be considered as the first sentencing alternative. Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶25. Here, the trial court expressly addressed probation. … In sum, the court concluded that probation would unduly depreciate the offense. …
¶48 Probation should be the disposition unless confinement is necessary to protect the public,
Sentencing Review – Articulation of Factors – Defendant’s Character
State v. Donald Odom, 2006 WI App 145
For Odom: Eileen Miller Carter; J.C. Moore, SPD, Milwaukee Trial
Issue/Holding: Trial court’s discussion of the three primary sentencing factors was adequate, though the court did not explicitly identify those factors, ¶25.
Sentencing Review – Articulation of Factors by Trial Court
State v. Jeremy D. Russ, 2006 WI App 9
For Russ: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶14 This court observes a strong policy of deferring to the sentencing discretion of a trial court, presuming the sentence to be reasonable unless the defendant can demonstrate from the record that the court acted unreasonably. State v. Mosley, 201 Wis. 2d 36,
Conflict between (Indisputably) Unambiguous Oral Pronouncement and Written Judgment
State v. Carla L. Oglesby, 2006 WI App 95
For Oglesby: Timothy T. Kay
Issue/Holding:
¶15 … [T]he trial court’s oral pronouncement imposed a two-year term of probation in 2004CM401. Despite this clear and unequivocal statement, the judgment of conviction recited a probation term of six years.
¶16 When an unambiguous oral pronouncement at sentencing conflicts with an equally unambiguous pronouncement in the judgment of conviction,
Conflict between Ambiguous Oral Pronouncement and Written Judgment – Sentencing Court’s Silence on Matter of Consecutive or Concurrent – Determination of Sentencing Court’s Intent, Presumption of Concurrency
State v. Carla L. Oglesby, 2006 WI App 95
For Oglesby: Timothy T. Kay
Issue/Holding: The test for statutory construction – whether the language is capable of being understood by reasonably informed persons in different ways – applies to determination of a sentencing court’s intent; where the parties staked out different sentencing positions but the sentencing court was silent as to whether multiple terms were to be concurrent or consecutive,
Fines — Attorney Fees, Distinguished From
State v. Kevin J. Helsper, 2006 WI App 243
For Helsper: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶20 Fines and attorney fee obligations involve different State purposes, and therefore a different constitutional analysis. When analyzing the constitutionality of a fee recoupment statute, the court is to consider, among other things, the rationality of the connection between legislative means and purpose and the existence of alternative means for effectuating the purpose.
Enhancer – Proof – CCAP Entries
State v. Jamale A. Bonds, 2006 WI 83, reversing unpublished decision
For Bonds: Jeremy C. Perri, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether CCAP entries can satisfy the State’s burden of proving a repeater allegation.
Holding: Although the rules of evidence do not apply to proof of a repeater and a prior conviction need not be proved by certification,
(¶46) a CCAP report,
Enhancer – Pleading – Post-Plea Amendment
State v. Jamale A. Bonds, 2006 WI 83, reversing unpublished decision
For Bonds: Jeremy C. Perri, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether post-plea amendment of the repeater allegation to change its basis prejudiced the defendant hence was improper.
Holding:
¶31 It is the State’s burden to prove that Bonds was not prejudiced and Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1) was satisfied through notice of sufficient allegations of the basis for charging habitual criminality.
Enhancer – Pleading – Generally
State v. Jamale A. Bonds, 2006 WI 83, reversing unpublished decision
For Bonds: Jeremy C. Perri, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶30 When considered together, this precedent establishes the following principles:
(1) The purpose of the allegations of repeater status in a charging document is to provide the defendant with sufficient notice of the potential maximum penalty he faces in order that the defendant may make an informed plea.