On Point: H. Modification/Review

State v. Peter C. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, PFR filed 4/3/03
For Ramuta: Peter M. Koneazny, Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Sentence of initial confinement of 35 years not excessive:

¶25. Although we recognize that trial courts should impose “‘the minimum amount of custody’” consistent with the appropriate sentencing facts, State v.

State v. Peter C. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, PFR filed 4/3/03
For Ramuta: Peter M. Koneazny, Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

¶22. Ramuta complains that the cumulative terms of initial confinement-thirty-five years, until he turns seventy-six-are excessive. He claims that the trial court did not adequately explain why the sentences for all but one of his crimes should be, to use Ramuta’s word,

State v. Nathan T. Hall, 2002 WI App 108
For Hall: Howard B. Eisenberg, Dean, Marquette Law School

Issue/Holding: Because the trial court failed to explain its reasoning, its sentence was an erroneous exercise of discretion. In particular, the trial court exceeded the PSI recommendation (107 years) by approximately 200 years, without explaining either the necessity for sentences so long “that Hall will never live long enough to serve them,”

State v. Anthony J. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, affirming 2001 WI App 172, 247 Wis. 2d 195, 633 N.W.2d 207
For Leitner: Jefren Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the sentencing court erred in considering the facts of convictions expunged under § 973.015.

Holding:

¶46. If information about the underlying facts of an expunged conviction come from a source other than a government record,

State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02
For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Reviewing court may address merits of attack on sentence based on inaccurate information, notwithstanding absence of contemporaneous objection. ¶25. It is appropriate here for the court to overlook waiver, where the state concedes that it can’t support the information now challenged; and defendant’s postconviction motion showed that information was inaccurate and also established a basis for believing that he didn’t have an adequate opportunity to refute the information.

State v. Timothy J. Helm, 2002 WI App 154, PFR filed 6/11/02

Issue: Whether resentencing, to correct an illegal sentence, violated double jeopardy because it resulted in an increase in the original sentence.

Holding: On sentence after revocation, the trial court reimposed probation on one of the counts; this was an unauthorized disposition which the trial court properly corrected by subsequently resentencing to an active term of imprisonment on that count.  

State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02
For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶39 n. 1:

Groth was sentenced on all three counts at the same hearing and, therefore, the court’s determination of his sentence on any of the counts may well have affected its determination and structuring of his sentences on all three.

State v. Dawn M. Champion, 2002 WI App 267, PFR filed 12/2/02
For Champion: Patricia L. Arreazola

Issue: Whether the defendant’s early completion of all available rehabilitation programs is a new factor justifying reduction of the confinement portion of her sentence.

Holding:

¶13. Our review of the legislative history of 1997 Wis. Act 283 demonstrates that the legislature intended something inconsistent with Champion’s proposal.

State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding: Defendant’s new-found realization that his behavior was caused by childhood sexual exploitation isn’t a new factor justifying sentence reduction: “¶25 … Just as a new expert opinion based on previously known or knowable facts is nothing more than the newly discovered importance of existing evidence … not newly discovered evidence for purposes of plea withdrawal,

State v. Kelley L. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226
For Hauk: David D. Cook

Issue/Holding: Reversal of defendant’s conviction in another case is new factor (where remaining, valid sentence was concurrent to vacated sentence) upon which trial court may, but is not required, to reduce sentence.