On Point: 5. Inaccurate information

State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2017AP2265-CR, petition for review granted 5/14/19, and State v. Donavinn Coffee, 2017AP2292-CR, petition for review granted 5/14/19; case activity (Counihan; Coffee)

Issues:

Does a defendant forfeit his right to challenge a judge’s consideration of information at sentencing by failing to object to the information at the time of sentencing?

If trial counsel does not object to the court’s consideration of the information and the defendant alleges postconviction that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object, what is the standard for determining whether trial counsel’s failure was prejudicial?

Looks like NYU Professor Ann Washington has done the hard work for you. Her new article, How to Argue With an Algorithm: Lessons from the Compass-ProPublica Debate, strives to inform courtroom arguments over the integrity of algorithms used to predict risk during the sentencing process.

State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2017AP2265-CR, District 3, 11/6/2017 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 5/14/19, modified and affirmed, 2020 WI 12, ; case activity (including briefs)

At Counihan’s sentencing, the circuit court announced it had researched the outcomes in other cases with similar charges and then used that information in sentencing Counihan to jail time. Counihan moved for resentencing, arguing the circuit court violated due process because she didn’t have notice it had collected information about other cases or the opportunity to address the information at sentencing. The court of appeals holds the claim is forfeited because trial counsel didn’t object at the sentencing hearing. It also holds trial counsel’s failure to object wasn’t prejudicial.

State v. Larry L. Garner, 2016AP2201-CR, 4/17/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The State charged Garner and 3 other co-defendants with 2 counts of armed robbery use of force, PTAC, and felony murder, PTAC. The trial court ordered separate trials. A mistrial occurred due to juror misconduct, so the court held a second trial where the jury found Garner guilty on all 3 counts. On appeal the lead issue was whether the circuit court violated Garner’s confrontation rights by allowing the State to present his co-defendant’s testimony from the 1st trial at his 2nd trial. The answer, according to the court of appeals, is “no.” Garner’s challenges to the State’s amended information and to his sentence also failed.

State v. Bruce D. Johnson, 2017AP834-CR, District 3, 3/6/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Even if the sentencing court erroneously thought the sentence he was imposing on Johnson would be served in the jail rather than prison, that mistake doesn’t provide grounds for a sentence modification or resentencing.

This new paper examines data from over 1 million criminal cases in an attempt to answer that question.

For latest on this subject, see today’s issue of Inside Track, which features comments by Wisconsin’s expert on evidence-based sentencing, Professor Cecelia Klingele.

State v. Java I. Orr, 2016AP2009, 7/5/17, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Orr raises and loses 3 issues relating to the sentence credit that he received in this case. He argues that (1) he should have been allowed withdraw his plea because trial counsel gave him incorrect infromation regarding the sentence credit he would receive; (2) the actual amount of sentence credit he received is a new factor warranting modification of his sentence; and (3) the trial court sentenced based on inaccurate sentence credit information.

State v. Jesse T. Riemer, 2017 WI App 48; case activity (including briefs)

In what appears to be the first case of its kind, the court of appeals addresses the standard for reviewing the sentence imposed on a member of the Wisconsin National Guard after he was convicted of various offenses. Concluding it should apply the same standard as civilian criminal cases—erroneous exercise of discretion—it affirms the military judge’s sentence.

State v. Loomis has made the NYTimes again. See today’s article by Adam Liptak: Sent to Prison by Software’s Secret Algorithms.