On Point: H. Modification/Review

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

Issue/Holding: The trial court erred in granting a motion to modify sentence without either seeking the state’s response or holding a hearing. Procedure on motion to modify sentence is similar to that for a post-conviction motion under § 974.06(3) — if the motion is obviously non-meritorious, the trial court should deny it outright;

State v. Robert L. Noll, 2002 WI App 273

Issue: Whether a new-factor based motion to modify sentence may be rejected as untimely under § 973.19.

Holding: The motion invoked the trial court’s inherent authority to modify, and therefore § 973.19 and its 90-day deadline was inapplicable. ¶5. The two procedures are distinct. Under § 973.19 a defendant may within 90 days of sentence “assert[] an erroneous exercise of discretion based on excessiveness,

State v. Christopher Kaczynski, 2002 WI App 276, PFR filed 11/20/02
For Kaczynski: Eugene Kaluzny

Issue/Holding: Sentence of 10 years, where the conduct would have supported charges carrying 45 years, isn’t harsh. ¶13.

State v. Aaron O. Schreiber, 2002 WI App 75, PFR filed 3/12/02
For Schreiber: William J. Donarski

Issue/Holding: The sentencing court properly considered the three primary sentencing factors — gravity of offense, defendant’s character, need to protect public — and the weight assigned each is delegated primarily to the trial court. (Schreiber’s argument that the sentencing court shouldn’t have considered his gang affiliation, because he’d already been punished for that by having his probation revoked,

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

Issue/Holding: A sentence well within the maximum (here, 44 years out of a possible 110) is presumptively not unduly harsh. ¶¶29-33.

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: Trial court disclaimer (via postconviction ruling) of reliance on information challenged as inaccurate isn’t binding: rather, appellate court “may independently review the record to determine the existence of any such reliance.” ¶¶27-28. Here, the record shows that this disclaimer “was, at least in part,

State v. Kirk J. Bergquist, 2002 WI App 39
For Berhquist: Steven H. Gibbs

Issue: Whether the state’s refusal to return guns valued at between $5000 and $7,150, following conviction for disorderly conduct, violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause.

Holding:

¶8. Although the term “forfeiture” does not appear in this statute, our supreme court has recognized that the result of refusing to return a weapon to a person who committed a crime using the weapon is a forfeiture.

State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265, 258 Wis. 2d 473, 654 N.W.2d 446
For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Subsequent legislative reclassification of offense, which substantially reduced maximum penalty, didn’t make Gallion’s sentence harsh and excessive. ¶¶73-74.

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:

¶22. A defendant who asks for resentencing because the court relied on inaccurate information must show both that the information was inaccurate and that the court relied on it. Id. The defendant carries the burden of proving both prongs-inaccuracy of the information and prejudicial reliance by the sentencing court-by clear and convincing evidence.

State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265
For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee App
Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶23. McCleary further recognized that “[t]he sentence imposed in each case should call for the minimum amount of custody or confinement which is consistent with the protection of the public,