On Point: 36. Sentencing

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,

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

Issue: Whether the sentencing court erroneously exercised discretion, or violated equal protection, in setting an excessive length of extended supervision so as to ensure that the defendant satisfies the restitution order.

Holding: “¶39. We conclude that the trial court’s sentencing rationale, taken as a whole, did not constitute an erroneous exercise of discretion.

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

Issue/Holding:

¶21. Finally, Stenzel asserts that the court erroneously exercised its discretion because the sentence is unduly harsh and unconscionable. When a defendant argues that his or her sentence is unduly harsh or excessive, we will hold that the sentencing court erroneously exercised its discretion “only where the sentence is so excessive and unusual and so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper under the circumstances.” 

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

Issue/Holding:

¶6. In State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revisited the seminal case in sentencing jurisprudence, McCleary v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 263, 182 N.W.2d 512 (1971) …¶7. The appellate standard of review is limited to determining if the sentencing court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion.

 State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz

Issue/Holding:

¶54. It is “‘well established that a sentencing judge may take into account facts introduced at trial relating to other charges, even ones of which the defendant has been acquitted.’” United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 152 (1997) (per curiam) (quoted source omitted,

State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265
For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee App
Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School

Issue/Holding: (The singular importance of this case requires this very lengthy excerpt, albeit without the footnotes which don’t seem to add substantive content.)

¶38. In light of the increased responsibility placed upon the sentencing court,