On Point blog, page 4 of 7
Court of Appeals certifies issues challenging use of COMPAS assessments at sentencing
State v. Eric L. Loomis, 2015AP157-CR, District 4, 9/17/15, certification granted 11/4/15, circuit court affirmed, 2016 WI 68; case activity (including briefs)
Issues
We certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide whether the right to due process prohibits circuit courts from relying on COMPAS assessments when imposing sentence. More specifically, we certify whether this practice violates a defendant’s right to due process, either because the proprietary nature of COMPAS prevents defendants from challenging the COMPAS assessment’s scientific validity, or because COMPAS assessments take gender into account. Given the widespread use of COMPAS assessments, we believe that prompt supreme court review of the matter is needed.
Court of appeals rejects multiple challenges to conviction for failure to pay child support
State v. Bradley Wayne Phillips, 2014AP2519-CR, District 1, 9/1/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Phillips challenges his conviction for failing to pay child support because: (1) the trial court prohibited testimony from an expert witness about whether Phillips was employable; (2) the postconviction court did not find Phillips’s defense counsel ineffective for allegedly failing to present a plea offer from the State; (3) the postconviction court denied Phillips a Machner hearing on his multiple other allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the postconviction court denied Phillips’ motion for resentencing. The court of appeals rejects all of Phillips’s claims.
It doesn’t take much to explain a sentencing decision
State v. Steven Ray Gaddis, 2015AP130-CR, District 1, 7/28/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Even the sentencing judge admitted his sentencing explanation “could have been more extensive” (¶10). But, hey, it was good enough for government work.
Request for resentencing due to inaccurate information fails
State v. Greenwood, 2014AP2219-CR,6 /30/15, District 3 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs
Greenwood, who was convicted of several misdemeanors, sought resentencing on the grounds that the circuit court had relied on inaccurate information at the initial sentencing. Specifically, Greenwood alleged that the court believed his sentences would be served in jail when, in fact, § 973.03(2) required that he serve his sentences in prison. The court of appeals rejected this claim.
Sentencing court didn’t rely on inaccurate information
State v. Travis Deon Williams, 2014AP2064-CR, 2014AP2065-CR, 2014AP2066-CR, and 2014AP2067-CR, District 1, 2/10/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The prosecutor presented inaccurate information at Williams’s sentencing, but Williams hasn’t proven the circuit court relied on the information.
Sentencing court’s reference to “misconduct in public office” was a factual characterization, not a statement showing the court erroneously sentenced the defendant for that offense
State v. Timothy D. Russell, 2014AP451-CR, District 1, 12/23/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
When sentencing Russell for a series of thefts committed while he was deputy chief of staff to the Milwaukee County Executive, the circuit court referred to the charge to which Russell pled as “misconduct in public office, … not a theft as I think has been reported.” (¶8). The court of appeals holds that the sentencing transcript, when read as a whole, makes it clear that the circuit court did not erroneously believe it was sentencing Russell for the offense of misconduct in public office, but merely intended to note that Russell committed the offense of theft by virtue of his public position as deputy chief of staff to the Milwaukee County Executive.
Sentencing court didn’t err in its interpretation or application of COMPAS report
State v. Jordan John Samsa, 2015 WI App 6; case activity
The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in using the criminogenic needs section of the COMPAS assessment report, which identifies areas in which the offender needs correctional or community intervention, as an indicator of Samsa’s danger to the community.
Court of appeals “sympathizes” with angst of dedicated criminal defense lawyers?!
State v. David M. Carlson, 2014 WI App 124; case activity
Note to trial courts: When ineffective assistance of counsel claims are based what trial counsel said to his client, hold an evidentiary hearing. Note to defense counsel: Data showing the sentences received by defendants charged with the same crimes as your client is about as useful as data showing a patient diagnosed with a lethal illness the survival rates of similarly-diagnosed patients. Note to all: A single, inaccurate, hyperbolic remark during the course of a long sentencing explanation is harmless even if the trial court relied upon it.
Records that support claims defense counsel made at sentencing not enough to merit resentencing or sentence modification
State v. Anthony Herman Williams, 2014AP447-CR & 2014AP448-CR, District 1, 9/30/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2014AP447-CR; 2014AP448-CR
Cell phone records that corroborate a claim Williams’s trial lawyer made at sentencing regarding contact between Williams and the victims don’t show that the sentencing court relied on inaccurate information because the records do little to corroborate the contact or support Williams’s version of events.
Sentencing court’s “assumption” that defendant acted with intent to kill victim was not inaccurate information
State v. Jameil A. Garrett, 2013AP1178-CR & 2013AP1179-CR, District 2, 4/23/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2013AP1178-CR; 2013AP1179-CR
The circuit court did not sentence Garrett based on an “unwarranted assumption” that Garrett acted with intent to kill the victim of a strangulation offense. Thus, Garrett is not entitled to a new sentencing hearing.