On Point: H. Modification/Review

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.  

State v. Frederick W. Scheuers, 2011AP1709-CR, District 2, 1/11/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Scheuers: Jeffrey Mann; case activity

Sentence of 7 months for criminal damage to property, upheld as proper exercise of discretion.

¶9        Scheuers acknowledges that the trial court “took into account and properly stated on the record what [it] believed was an appropriate response in addressing the needs for protecting the public,

State v. Demian Hyden McDermott, 2012 WI App 14 (recommended for publication); for McDermott: Robert R. Henak, Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity

Sentencing Review – New Factor – Assistance to Law Enforcement 

McDermott, convicted in 1991 of first-degree intentional homicide, ptac with a parole eligibility date of 35 years, seeks new-factor-based modification of his PED on the ground “he helped law enforcement by participating in prison programs designed to dissuade youth from crime.”

State v. Anrietta M. Geske, 2012 WI App 15 (recommended for publication); for Geske: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Sufficiency of Proof – “Utter Disregard” Element (Reckless Homicide, § 940.02(1)) 

Evidence held sufficient to support reckless homicide element of utter disregard of human life, where deaths resulted from high-speed automobile collision after running red light, notwithstanding undisputed evidence that Geske swerved her car in an attempt to avoid the collision. 

State v. Lisa L. Payne, 2010AP1995-CR, District 3, 12/20/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Payne: Eric R. Pangburn; case activity

The court, in imposing a sentence to prison confinement term of 13 months, expressly took into effect the possibility that Payne’s medical needs would not “be addressed adequately in a county jail.” Upon postconviction challenge to the sentence, “however, the court clarified that the length of Payne’s sentence was not dependent upon the care that she would receive in either jail or prison,”

on review of unpublished decision; for Frey: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Sentencing Discretion – Reliance on Dismissed Charge

Issue (composed by On Point): 

Whether sentencing discretion was erroneously exercised by undue reliance on, including unfounded inferences drawn from, a charge dismissed “outright.”

Frey was charged with sexually assaulting two girls. Both testified at the preliminary hearing. Frey ended up pleading no contest to assaulting one,

Nielsen sanction after show cause (summary order, not citable), on remand from State v. Nielsen, 2011 WI 94

Sanction for Incomplete Brief Appendix 

The appellant’s brief argued that the circuit court failed to fulfill the mandate articulated in State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, to explain the rationale for the particular sentence imposed.

State v. Lavalle Rimmer, 2010AP2680-CR, District 1, 11/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Rimmer: Christian C. Starner; case activity

The sentencing court did not actually rely on concededly inaccurate information, therefore Rimmer isn’t entitled to resentencing.

Methodology for analyzing inaccurate-information issue recited, ¶¶11-16. Court suggests that something akin to explicit reference to inaccurate information required, ¶16.)

State v. Alok Kumar, 2010AP2703-CR, District 1, 11/8/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Kumar: Robin Shellow, Michael E. O’Rourke; case activity

Sentence to presumptive minimum (5 years confinement) for using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime, § 948.075(lr), is upheld as a proper exercise of discretion, against Kumar’s arguments that the sentencing court: didn’t permit him to show sentences imposed by other circuit courts in presumptive-minimum cases;

Miller: SCOTUSblog page; consolidated with Jackson: SCOTUSblog page

Question Presented (from SCOTUSblog):

Whether imposing a sentence of life without possibility of parole on an offender who was fourteen at the time he committed capital murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Sound at least vaguely familiar? It should: our supreme court resolved that very question last Term,