On Point: 36. Sentencing

State v. Joseph J. Hammill, 2006 WI App 128. For Hammill: Patrick J. Stangl

Issue/Holding:

¶15      Hammill argues the circuit court erred by counting a Village of Cameron conviction. Hammill was arrested in that case for OWI-first on January 1, 1991. On January 28, Hammill was arrested for OWI in Eau Claire, which was also charged as a first offense. Hammill pled to both OWI-first cases on the same day,

State v. Joseph J. Hammill, 2006 WI App 128
For Hammill: Patrick J. Stangl

Issue/Holding:

¶6        A defendant may collaterally attack a prior conviction in an enhanced sentence proceeding only on the ground that the defendant was denied the constitutional right to counsel. …

¶7        Hammill argues that he made a prima facie showing that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel.

State v. Kevin J. Helsper, 2006 WI App 243
For Helsper: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶7        Constitutional limits on a state’s recoupment of attorney fees are grounded in both due process and equal protection principles. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 665 (1983). Recoupment statutes must be tailored to “impose an obligation only upon those with a foreseeable ability to meet it,

State v. Jonathan Owens, 2006 WI App 75, PFR filed 4/4/06
For Owens: Dianne M. Erickson

Issue: Whether the sentencing court’s initial denial of ERP eligibility, seemingly on the improper basis of the defendant’s age, was a proper exercise of discretion where on motion for reconsideration the court “stated that it had intended to refer to Owens’s age regarding his eligibility for the Challenge Incarceration Program only [and] then explained why it had denied Owens’s participation in the ERP and denied the motion for reconsideration.”

Holding:

¶9        Owens complains that even though the trial court set forth an explanation for its sentence,

State v. Gerald L. Lynch, Jr., 2006 WI App 231, PFR filed 11/6/06
For Lynch: David R. Karpe

Issue: Whether statutory ineligibility for Earned Release, § 973.01(3g), for homicide by intoxicated use violates equal protection given eligibility for driving while intoxicated but not causing death or great bodily harm.

Holding:

¶18      Applying this standard, we conclude there is a rational basis for not allowing persons convicted of crimes under Wis.

State v. Jeremy D. Russ, 2006 WI App 9
For Russ: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: A deaf defendant who had been shackled when he entered a guilty plea and was sentenced must show actual inability to communicate effectively in order to meet his burden of showing a violation of rights. Thus, even though the defendant adduced expert proof at the postconviction hearing “that communication would be limited and difficult if a deaf person who used sign language were handcuffed,” he did not meet his burden of proof:

¶10      As the trial court observed,

State v. Steven A. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26
For Harvey: Christopher William Rose

Issue/Holding: Plea bargain, which permitted State to comment on facts but not to make specific sentencing recommendation was not violated by State’s presentation of victim and others who themselves asked for maximum penalty:

¶40      We first disagree that the State breached the plea agreement by going beyond factual argument with its comments about evidence it would have introduced had there been a trial.

State v. Keith S. Krause, 2006 WI App 43
For Krause: Roger G. Merry

Issue/Holding: Because collateral attack on a prior conviction used as a sentencing enhancer is limited to denial of counsel, and because the right to counsel does not attach to a civil proceeding, a refusal revocation is not subject to collateral attack on its use as an OWI enhancer:

¶12      In an enhanced-penalty situation,

State v. Thomas A. Mikulance, 2006 WI App 69
Pro se

Issue/Holding: A “narrow” exception to the serial litigation bar of § 974.06(4) and State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 185, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994) is established by State v. Flowers, 221 Wis. 2d 20, 27, 586 N.W.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1998), which “applies only where the defendant files a motion alleging that the State has failed to prove the prior conviction necessary to sustain the habitual criminal status (by proof or by admission) or when the penalty imposed is longer than permitted by law for a repeater,” ¶¶1,

State v. James Hubert Tucker, Jr., 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals
For Tucker: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶2 We conclude, based on our holding in State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, that the reduced maximum confinement penalties under TIS-II do not constitute new factors when a defendant such as Tucker moves for the modification of sentences imposed under TIS-I.