On Point blog, page 83 of 95
Plea Bargains — Breach: By Defendant – Challenging Prior Enhancer-Conviction
State v. Robert C. Deilke, 2004 WI 104, reversing 2003 WI App 151, 266 Wis. 2d 274, 667 N.W.2d 867
For Deilke: Kelly J. McKnight
Issue: Whether a defendant’s successful challenge to a prior plea-bargain based conviction that is being used as an enhancer in a current proceeding amounts to a breach of that prior plea bargain so as to allow reinstatement of charges dismissed under it.
Sentencing Review – Factors – Articulation by Court
State v. Nathan T. Hall, 2002 WI App 108
For Hall: Howard B. Eisenberg, Dean, Marquette Law School
Issue/Holding: Because the trial court failed to explain its reasoning, its sentence was an erroneous exercise of discretion. In particular, the trial court exceeded the PSI recommendation (107 years) by approximately 200 years, without explaining either the necessity for sentences so long “that Hall will never live long enough to serve them,”
Sentencing Factors – Expunged Priors, § 973.015 – Reliance on Underlying Facts
State v. Anthony J. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, affirming 2001 WI App 172, 247 Wis. 2d 195, 633 N.W.2d 207
For Leitner: Jefren Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the sentencing court erred in considering the facts of convictions expunged under § 973.015.
Holding:
¶46. If information about the underlying facts of an expunged conviction come from a source other than a government record,
Enhanced Penalties — Proof — Uncertified Judgment of Prior Conviction
State v. Patrick A. Saunders, 2002 WI 107, reconsideration denied, 2002 WI 119, reversing unpublished opinion
For Saunders: Beth Ermatinger Hanan
Issue: Whether an uncertified copy of the prior judgment of conviction may serve as part of the proof requirement of a repeater allegation that is not personally admitted by the defendant.
Holding: In the absence of the defendant’s personal admission to the prior conviction(s),
Plea Bargains — Breach: By Prosecutor — Negative Allocution
State v. John D. Williams, 2002 WI 1, affirming 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164
For Williams: John A. Pray
Issue/Holding:
¶46. We must examine the entire sentencing proceeding to evaluate the prosecutor’s remarks. Upon reviewing the State’s comments in the context of the sentencing hearing, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the State stepped over the fine line between relaying information to the circuit court on the one hand and undercutting the plea agreement on the other hand.
Sentence Credit – Electronic Monitoring
State ex rel. Willie C. Simpson v. Schwarz, 2002 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/11/02
Issue: Whether spent on electronic monitoring while on probation supports sentence credit following revocation.
Holding: Because the probationer could not have been charged with escape for leaving electronic monitoring, he isn’t entitled to sentence credit for the time he spent on electronic monitoring. ¶¶31-33.
Sentence credit – Delayed Report Date Due to Jail Overcrowding
State v. Anthony J. Dentici, Jr., 2002 WI App 77, PFR filed 2/5/02
For Dentici: Joseph E. Redding
Issue/Holding:
¶1 … Dentici claims that he is entitled to twenty-five days’ credit pursuant to State v. Riske, 152 Wis. 2d 260, 448 N.W.2d 260 (Ct. App. 1989), because, after being sentenced to sixty days at the House of Correction as a condition of probation,
Restitution – Discovery, § 973.20(14)(d)
State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth
Issue/Holding: Where restitution was for counseling expenses, Johnson failed to show good cause for discovery of her counseling records. ¶¶28-30.
Restitution — Limitations — Recharacterizing as Condition of Probation
State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth
Issue/Holding: Because record is clear that trial court ordered restitution, court of appeals refuses to recharacterize (and uphold) order as condition of probation:
¶25 As a final argument, the State contends that even if W.L.’s wages are not recoverable under WIS. STAT. § 973.20, the circuit court could have properly required repayment of the lost wages as a condition of probation under WIS.
Restitution – “Victim” — “Stepparent,” Wages, Lost Accompanying Victim to Court
State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth
Issue/Holding: Wages lost by a stepparent’s accompanying the victim to court aren’t subject to restitution; lost wages are limited to those persons identified in § 973.20(5)(b). ¶¶22-23.
Issue/Holding: A stepparent is not victim for § 973.20(1r) restitution purposes, ¶¶17-19. (However, a stepparent may qualify as an “other person,” under § 973.20(5)(d),