On Point blog, page 7 of 37
Victim’s failure to wear seatbelt doesn’t diminish OWI defendant’s culpability
State v. Pierre Deshawn Johnson, 2018AP595-CR, 2/12/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Johnson pled to operating a vehicle with a suspended license and injury by operating under the influence of a controlled substance. His lead issue–whether the victim’s failure to wear a seatbelt was a significant intervening factor that diminished his culpability and warranted a new sentence–failed based on State v. Turk, 154 Wis. 2d 294, 453 N.W.2d 163.
Sentence modification, cost collection claims rejected
State v. Shawn A. Hodgkins, 2017AP1799-CR, District 2, 12/12/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)
Hodgkins objected to DOC collecting costs from him while he was in prison because the circuit court ordered the costs to be collected while he was on a term of consecutive probation. He also sought a “new factor” sentence modification. Alas, it was all in vain.
Failure to object during sentencing hearing to court’s consideration of information means the issue is forfeited
State v. Carrie E. Counihan, 2017AP2265-CR, District 3, 11/6/2017 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 5/14/19, modified and affirmed, 2020 WI 12, ; case activity (including briefs)
At Counihan’s sentencing, the circuit court announced it had researched the outcomes in other cases with similar charges and then used that information in sentencing Counihan to jail time. Counihan moved for resentencing, arguing the circuit court violated due process because she didn’t have notice it had collected information about other cases or the opportunity to address the information at sentencing. The court of appeals holds the claim is forfeited because trial counsel didn’t object at the sentencing hearing. It also holds trial counsel’s failure to object wasn’t prejudicial.
Counsel not ineffective for failing to object to vouching at trial and impermissible factors at sentencing
State v. Kenneth Alexander Burks, 2018AP208-CR, 9/25/18, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals held that an officer’s testimony that another witnesses’s testimony was “very believable” did not qualify as “vouching” when considered in context. It also held that the circuit court did not impermissibly rely on its own comments about the opioid epidemic, addiction, and the medical and pharmaceutical industries when it sentenced Burks. Thus, his lawyer was not ineffective when he failed to object to these alleged errors.
Challenges to juvenile’s life sentence rejected
State v. Jevon Dion Jackson, 2017AP712, District 1, 8/28/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions holding that the Eighth Amendment limits the imposition of life sentences on juveniles, Jackson argues he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing or sentence modification. The court of appeals concludes Jackson’s sentence is constitutional.
Denial of plea withdrawal, sentence modification and postconviction discovery affirmed
State v. Darrick L. Bennett, 2016AP2209-CR, 9/18/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Bennett was charged with 1st degree intentional homicide, but pled guilty to 1st degree reckless homicide. In a decision turning on facts specific to this case, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision denying (a) plea withdrawal without a hearing, (b) sentence modification based on a new factors, and (c) postconviction discovery of evidence that might have affected his sentence.
Sentencing court didn’t violate defendant’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination
State v. Marquis D. Walls, 2017AP1600-CR, District 1, 8/14/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects Walls’s argument that the circuit court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by pressuring him to admit guilt at sentencing and then used his failure to do so to impose a harsher sentence.
COA: No IAC for plea advice or lack of plea withdrawal; also no new factor
State v. Terrell Antwain Kelly, 2017AP1584, 7/31/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Kelly was charged with both a long-ago second-degree sexual assault of a child and several domestic violence counts (the victim was the same). The state offered him a choice between two plea deals: one in which he would plead to the sexual assault with the DV counts dismissed and read in, and one in which he would plead to the DV counts with the sexual assault dismissed and read in.
SCOW: Warrantless blood draw was okay; using refusal as aggravating sentencing factor was not
State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 2018 WI 85, 7/3/18, reversing in part and remanding an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court holds there were exigent circumstances that allowed police to draw blood from Dalton without a warrant after he refused to consent to a blood draw. But a majority of the court also holds that the sentencing judge erred by explicitly imposing a harsher sentence on Dalton because he refused to consent to the blood draw.
COA says trial court didn’t sentence on improper factors
State v. Dion Lashay Byrd, 2017AP1968, 6/26/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Byrd was convicted of making a bomb threat to the Fox 6 TV station in Milwaukee. He claims the sentencing court relied on two improper factors in imposing the maximum sentence for this Class I felony. First, he says the court coerced him into making self-incriminating statements during his sentencing allocution–statements that could not be used against him at sentencing under the Fifth Amendment. Second, he contends the court should not have based its sentencing decision on its stated dissatisfaction with the statutory maximum.