On Point: H. Modification/Review

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565, affirmed, other grounds, 2002 WI 34
For Samuel: Robert R. Henak

Issue: Whether the defendant waived objection to the sentencing court’s reliance on information sealed from the defendant’s inspection.

Holding:

¶42 We accept the State’s waiver argument. First, just because the trial court was in its “imposing sentence”

State v. Steve Norton, 2001 WI App 245
For Norton: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether an unanticipated, post-sentencing revocation amounted to a new factor justifying modification of sentence.

Holding:

¶10. Although we agree with the State that, in general, revocation of probation in another case does not ordinarily present a new factor, the specific facts involved in this case require an exception to the general rule.

State v. Andre D. Crockett, 2001 WI App 235, PFR filed
For Crockett: David D. Cook

Issue:Whether facts suggesting that the defendant might have been less culpable than his codefendants amounted to a new factor justifying modification of sentence.

Holding: A new factor may be relate to facts “unknowingly overlooked” at sentencing; here, although the asserted new factor may have been unknowingly overlooked by the sentencing court,

State v. John Casteel, 2001 WI App 188, PFR filed

Issue: Whether Casteel’s failure to argue in a prior new-factor based attempt to modify sentence bars him from now arguing that the special action release program, § 304.02 — a statute extant at the time of the prior motion to modify — is a new factor.

Holding:

¶17. We note that the special action parole release statute was first adopted in 1989.

State v. Anthony A. Parker, 2001 WI App 111

Issue: Whether transfer to an out-of-state prison was a new factor supporting sentence modification.

Holding:

¶11. Parker contends that his transfer out of state is a new factor that frustrates the purpose of his sentence because his placement no longer coincides with the judgment of conviction confining him to ‘Wisconsin state prisons.’ Parker’s reliance upon these words is excessively literal and finds no support in the case law.

State v. Joshua Slagoski, 2001 WI App 112, PFR filed 4/27/01
For Slagoski: Christopher William Rose

Issue1: Whether the results of a competency examination, which suggested that defendant presented a homicide-suicide risk, amounted to materially inaccurate information used at sentencing.

Holding:

¶9 We conclude that it is entirely reasonable that a mental competency examination designed to address a defendant’s ability to understand the proceedings and assist counsel may also address issues of future dangerousness.

State v. Shomari L. Robinson, 2001 WI App 127, 629 N.W.2d 810, PFR filed 5/7/01
Robinson: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue: Whether the trial court impermissibly limited the defense presentation at sentencing.

Holding:

¶19            What remains is for us to consider whether the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by prohibiting Robinson from presenting his “car evidence” at sentencing.  As the trial court correctly noted,

State v. Glenn F. Schwebke, 2001 WI App 99, 242 Wis. 2d 585, 627 N.W.2d 213, affirmed on other grds., 2002 WI 55
For Schwebke: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: The remedy for this sentence which exceeded the permissible maximum — multiple counts of probation running consecutive to one another, ¶¶25-30 — is to commute the excess portion to the total allowable term of probation.

State v. Gabriel L. Ortiz, 2001 WI App 215
For Ortiz: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: “(W)here there is conflict between a trial court’s oral pronouncement and a written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” ¶27, citing State v. Perry, 136 Wis. 2d 92, 114, 401 N.W.2d 748 (1987). This rule is applicable even though “the trial court’s oral pronouncement came after, rather than before,

State v. David S. Leighton, 2000 WI App 156, 237 Wis.2d 709, 616 N.W.2d 126
For Leighton: Daniel Snyder

Issue/Holding: In setting parole eligibility date trial court need not separately refer to primary factors used in imposing sentence. ¶¶52-53.