On Point blog, page 93 of 95

Resentencing – modification of probation before term commences.

State v. James E. Gray, 225 Wis.2d 39, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999), affirming unpublished decision For Gray: Helen M. Mullison Issue/Holding: Gray was originally convicted of three counts. On postconviction motion, the trial court vacated and dismissed with prejudice one count for lack of proof, and ordered a new trial on a second count. The […]

Read full article >

Sentencing – Factors – victim’s criminal record – due process right to accurate sentencing information

State v. Yolanda M. Spears, 227 Wis.2d 495, 596 N.W.2d 375 (1999), affirming State v. Spears, 220 Wis.2d 720, 585 N.W.2d 161 (Ct. App. 1998) For Spears: Richard D. Martin. SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Spears killed the “victim” (Young) after he assaulted her and took her purse. She entered an Alford plea to a homicide charge. At sentencing, […]

Read full article >

Sentencing – Review — Factors: Defendant’s Character

State v. Richard D. Yakes, 226 Wis.2d 425, 595 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1999) Holding: Defendant’s adultery, failure to pay child support, and status as a bankrupt “were all appropriate factors relating to Yakes’ character and personal history.”

Read full article >

Sentencing – Review — Excessiveness – 30 years for 1st offense

State v. David J. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d 32, 601 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1999) For Gardner: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Gardner’s 30-year sentence is upheld as a proper exercise of discretion.

Read full article >

Sentencing Review – Conflict between oral pronouncement written judgment.

State v. Tommy Lo, 228 Wis. 2d 531, 599 N.W.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1999) For Lo: Margarita Van Nuland Issue/Holding: “When there is a conflict between the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and a written judgment of conviction, the oral pronouncement controls.”

Read full article >

Enhanced Penalties — § 939.62(2), Time for Qualifying Offense — Confinement under Hold as Tolling

State v. Tyrone Price, 231 Wis.2d 229, 604 N.W.2d 898 (Ct. App. 1999) For Price: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate. Issue: Whether confinement time spent on parole holds qualifies as “actual confinement serving a criminal sentence” thereby extending the five-year period for a prior, qualifying sentence-enhancement conviction under § 939.62(2). Holding: Time spent […]

Read full article >

Enhancer — Pleading — Charge Made in Information Controls Different Repeater Allegation in Complaint

State v. John J. Thoms, 228 Wis. 2d 868, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999) For Thoms: Steven L. Miller Issue/Holding: The court reverses a persistent repeater sentence, § 939.62(2m). Thoms was originally charged in the complaint with the standard 10-year sentence enhancement, § 939.62(1)(c)&(2), based on a prior felony theft conviction. However, the information changed the […]

Read full article >

Enhancer — § 961.48(3), Drug Offender — Prior for Paraphernalia

State v. Dawn C. Moline, 229 Wis. 2d 38, 598 N.W.2d 929 (Ct. App. 1999) For Moline: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate. Issue/Holding: By this decision, we hold that a prior conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia pursuant to § 961.573, STATS., qualifies as a prior offense under the repeat drug offender statute, § 961.48(3), STATS. … […]

Read full article >

Costs – jail assessment – § 302.46(1) – fine or forfeiture required

State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999) For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte. Issue/Holding: The jail assessment in §§ 302.46(1) & 814.60(2)(ag) is contingent on imposition of a fine or forfeiture. Section 814.60(2)(ag), STATS., provides that “[i]n addition to any fine imposed, a defendant shall be required to pay any … [j]ail assessment […]

Read full article >

Costs – payment for sexual assault examination

State v. Daniel E. Rohe, 230 Wis.2d 294, 602 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1999) For Rohe: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate. Issue: Whether costs for a sexual assault examination were properly taxable, where the examination neither produced any results nor was used at trial. Holding: Because the examination was part of the state’s investigation […]

Read full article >