On Point: 36. Sentencing

State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90
For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether expenditures by victims to correct shoddy work done by defendant in theft by contractor case may be subject to restitution.

Holding:

¶23. We conclude that these costs, incurred by the homeowners and admittedly arising out of their dealings with Longmire, are not recoverable as a separate item of restitution under Wis.

State v. Victor Naydihor, 2004 WI 43, affirming 2002 WI App 272, 258 Wis. 2d 746, 654 N.W.2d 479
For Naydihor: Philip J. Brehm

Issue1: Whether an increase in sentence (from 3 to 5 years’ initial confinement), after resentencing before a different judge due to a plea bargain violation, was presumptively vindictive and therefore violated due process.

Holding1: Under the circumstances,

State v. Wallace I. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181
For Stenzel: Martin E. Kohler

Issue/Holding: ¶5, n. 2: “Technically, Stenzel is seeking a modification of a sentence imposed by an erroneous exercise of discretion; resentencing is only available if the initial sentence is vacated because it was illegally imposed. State v. Carter, 208 Wis. 2d 142, 146-47, 560 N.W.2d 256 (1997).”

Well,

State v. Brandon L. Mason, 2004 WI App 176
For Dawson: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where the term of initial confinement exceeds the permissible maximum, based on the rule that this term may not exceed 75% of the total sentence, the error is not harmless even though the term is less than the maximum that could have been imposed had the maximum sentence been given;

State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04
For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Because the “presentence investigation was not part of the accusatory stage of a criminal proceeding”; and because the PSR “interview was routine and was not conducted while Jimmie’s jeopardy was still in doubt, Jimmie, “unlike the defendant in Estelle,

State v. Bart C. Gruetzmacher, 2004 WI 55, on certification
For Gruetzamacher: Jennelle London Joset

Issue/Holding:

¶14. We now decide whether circuit courts should be allowed to correct obvious errors in sentencing where it is clear that a good faith mistake was made in an initial sentencing pronouncement, where the court promptly recognizes the error, and where the court, by reducing an erroneous original sentence on one count and increasing the original sentence on another,

State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90
For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶47. Finally, we acknowledge (and the State does not dispute) that the amount of restitution the court ordered Longmire to pay played a significant role in the court’s determination of the length of extended supervision it ordered. We have directed that the restitution amount be reduced from $34,985 to $27,252.

State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90
For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶42. Finally, Longmire cites three matters which he argues are “new factors” and thus grounds for the trial court to modify his term of extended supervision:  (1) a reduction in the maximum term of extended supervision for the class of felony of which Longmire was convicted; (2) the rationale of the Criminal Penalties Study Committee Final Report on 1997 Wisconsin Act 283 for recommending reduced maximum terms of supervision….

State v. Wallace I. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181
For Stenzel: Martin E. Kohler

Issue: Whether the sentencing court placed insufficient weight on defendant’s elderly age as a mitigating factor, and the likelihood he would not survive the confinement portion of his sentence.

Holding:

¶12. We agree with Stenzel that his age is a factor that the circuit court may consider as an aggravating or mitigating factor when imposing sentence.

State v. Wallace I. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181
For Stenzel: Martin E. Kohler

Issue: Whether the sentencing court placed insufficient weight on the likelihood defendant would not survive the confinement portion of his sentence.

Holding:

¶17. Stenzel faults the court for not assigning any relevancy to his life expectancy. He argues that he was seventy-eight years old at the sentencing and the eight years of initial confinement is very close to the 10.4 years of his life expectancy,