On Point: H. Modification/Review

State v. Michael L. Frey, 2012 WI 99, affirming unpublished decision; case activity

Sentencing Discretion – Reliance on Dismissed Charge 

The sentencing court may consider charges “dismissed” or “dismissed outright” (as opposed to read-ins)

¶47  To discharge its obligation to discern a defendant’s character, “[a] sentencing court may consider uncharged and unproven offenses,” State v. Leitner,

Evan Miller v. Alabama, USSC No. 10-9646 / Kuntrell Jackson v. Hobbs, No. 10-9647, 6/25/12,  reversing 63 So. 3d 676 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)

The two 14-year-old offenders in these cases were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In neither case did the sentencing authority have any discretion to impose a different punishment. State law mandated that each juvenile die in prison even if a judge or jury would have thought that his youth and its attendant characteristics,

State v. James E. Emerson, 2011AP1028-CR, District 3, 6/26/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Counsel – Substitute 

Given findings made by the lower court after an evidentiary hearing, the court of appeals upholds denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw: counsel was prepared for trial; “(t)his was a dilatory tactic by the defendant,” on the eve of trial after the charge had been pending for some time;

State v. Michael D. Carroll, 2012 WI App 83 (recommended for publication); case activity

Repeal of ability to earn “positive adjustment time” wasn’t highly relevant to Carroll’s sentence, therefore didn’t constitute a new factor that could support sentence modification.

¶9        Because 2011 Wis. Act 38 did not become effective until more than a year after Carroll’s sentencing hearing, it is obvious that the sentencing judge could not have known about the repeal at the time of sentencing.  

State v. Wayne P. Harris, 2012 wI App 79(recommended for publication); for Harris:  Attorney Gary Grass; case activity

We know that “[a] defendant has a due process right to be sentenced based on accurate information.”  See State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, ¶9, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1  But what happens when the sentencing court relies upon a DOC-prepared revocation summary that is “technically true but misleading” or that is “written in a way that that invite[s] the court to draw negative inferences”? 

State v. Dwain M. Staten, 2011AP916-CR, District 1, 5/8/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Staten: Michael J. Steinle; case activity

Postconviction DNA Testing, § 974.07 

Postconviction testing at state expense requires, among other things, that the defendant show a reasonable probability he wouldn’t have been prosecuted or convicted with exculpatory test results. Staten, whose defense to sexual assault was consent rather than misidentification,

State v. Thaying Lor, 2011AP2019-CR, District 1, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Lor: Benjamin F. Gallagher; case activity

Effective Assistance of Counsel 

Counsel did not provide ineffective representation in the following respects:

• Failure to timely file motion seeking admission of complainant’s prior untruthful allegation of sexual assault. However, Lor did not provide, including in his postconviction motion,

State v. Scott P. Wojcik, 2011AP2568-CR, District 2, 3/21/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wojcik: Christopher Lee Wiesmueller; case activity

90-day jail sentence for OWI-2nd (minimum 0f 5 days, maximum of 6 months) upheld as proper exercise of discretion. Trial court considered as aggravators recentness of prior OWI conviction (2008) and his seeming level of impairment (stumbled on getting out of car); and stressed deterrent purpose of sentence.

State v. Matthew R. Steffes, 2012 WI App 47 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 10/16/12; for Steffes: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

Conspiracy to Commit Theft by Fraud, §§ 939.31, 943.20(1)(d) – Sufficiency of Evidence 

Evidence held sufficient to sustain Steffes’ conviction for conspiracy to commit theft by fraud, based on his participation in a prisoners’ “burn-out” telephone scam.

State v. Anthony C. Boyden, 2012 WI App 38 (recommended for publication); for Boyden: Rex Anderegg; case activity

Information provided by Boyden before his sentencing, which didn’t bear fruit until much later, supported a new factor-based request for sentence modification. State v. Doe, 2005 WI App 68, 280 Wis. 2d 731, 697 N.W.2d 101, followed.

¶14      Boyden’s motion for sentence modification addresses in detail the factors set forth in Doe.