On Point blog, page 28 of 37
Sentencing – Review – Factors – Gallion – Generally
State v. Chad W. Ziegler, 2006 WI App 49, PFR filed 3/13/06
For Ziegler: Kenneth P. Casey, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶23 The principal objectives of a sentence include, but are not limited to, the protection of the community, the punishment of the defendant, rehabilitation of the defendant, and deterrence to others. Id., ¶40. A sentencing court should indicate the general objectives of greatest importance and explain how,
Sentencing Review – Factors – TIS, pre-Gallion – Generally
State v. Germaine M. Taylor, 2006 WI 22, affirming unpublished summary order
For Taylor: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶17 The standards governing appellate review of an imposed sentence are well settled. [9] A circuit court exercises its discretion at sentencing, and appellate review is limited to determining if the court’s discretion was erroneously exercised.
…
¶27 All told,
Sentencing Review – Factors – TIS – Probation as 1st Alternative
State v. Steven A. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26
For Harvey: Christopher William Rose
Issue/Holding:
¶47 Harvey correctly states Gallion’s teaching that probation should be considered as the first sentencing alternative. Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶25. Here, the trial court expressly addressed probation. … In sum, the court concluded that probation would unduly depreciate the offense. …
¶48 Probation should be the disposition unless confinement is necessary to protect the public,
Sentencing Review – Articulation of Factors – Defendant’s Character
State v. Donald Odom, 2006 WI App 145
For Odom: Eileen Miller Carter; J.C. Moore, SPD, Milwaukee Trial
Issue/Holding: Trial court’s discussion of the three primary sentencing factors was adequate, though the court did not explicitly identify those factors, ¶25.
Sentencing Review – Articulation of Factors by Trial Court
State v. Jeremy D. Russ, 2006 WI App 9
For Russ: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶14 This court observes a strong policy of deferring to the sentencing discretion of a trial court, presuming the sentence to be reasonable unless the defendant can demonstrate from the record that the court acted unreasonably. State v. Mosley, 201 Wis. 2d 36,
Conflict between (Indisputably) Unambiguous Oral Pronouncement and Written Judgment
State v. Carla L. Oglesby, 2006 WI App 95
For Oglesby: Timothy T. Kay
Issue/Holding:
¶15 … [T]he trial court’s oral pronouncement imposed a two-year term of probation in 2004CM401. Despite this clear and unequivocal statement, the judgment of conviction recited a probation term of six years.
¶16 When an unambiguous oral pronouncement at sentencing conflicts with an equally unambiguous pronouncement in the judgment of conviction,
Conflict between Ambiguous Oral Pronouncement and Written Judgment – Sentencing Court’s Silence on Matter of Consecutive or Concurrent – Determination of Sentencing Court’s Intent, Presumption of Concurrency
State v. Carla L. Oglesby, 2006 WI App 95
For Oglesby: Timothy T. Kay
Issue/Holding: The test for statutory construction – whether the language is capable of being understood by reasonably informed persons in different ways – applies to determination of a sentencing court’s intent; where the parties staked out different sentencing positions but the sentencing court was silent as to whether multiple terms were to be concurrent or consecutive,
Sentence Modification: New Factor — TIS-II, Reduced Penalty In Relation to TIS-I (Unclassified Felony) Sentence, Not New Factor
State v. James Hubert Tucker, Jr., 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals
For Tucker: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶2 We conclude, based on our holding in State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, that the reduced maximum confinement penalties under TIS-II do not constitute new factors when a defendant such as Tucker moves for the modification of sentences imposed under TIS-I.
Sentence Modification: New Factor, Generally
State v. Jose A. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals
For Trujillo: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶13 We define a new factor as “an event or development which frustrates the purpose of the original sentence,” Champion, 258 Wis. 2d 781, ¶4, and recognize it to be more than a change in circumstances since the time of sentencing.
Review — Sentence After (Extended Supervision) Revocation — Sufficiency of Articulated Rationale
State v. Brandon E. Jones, 2005 WI App 259
For Jones: Amelia L. Bizarro
Issue: Whether the sentencing court provided sufficient reasons for Jones’s reconfinement following revocation of extended supervision.
Holding:
¶9 …. The key is for the circuit court to provide sufficient information about its reasoning so as to allow for meaningful review. The “need for meaningful appellate review of a trial court’s decision to take away a person’s liberty must be our polestar.” Swiams,