On Point blog, page 8 of 37
Sentencing judge didn’t need to give separate reasons for imposing fine
State v. Robert P. Vesper, 2018 WI App 31; case activity (including briefs)
Vesper complains that when he was sentenced for his 7th OWI offense the judge didn’t give a separate explanation for why it was imposing a fine in addition to prison time. Over a dissent, the court of appeals concludes the judge said enough to satisfy the (not at all exacting) standard of review for exercise of sentencing discretion. The court also rejects Vesper’s claim that the judge didn’t assess his ability to pay the fine.
Challenges to admission of transcript testimony by unavailable witness, amendment of information, and sentence fail
State v. Larry L. Garner, 2016AP2201-CR, 4/17/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The State charged Garner and 3 other co-defendants with 2 counts of armed robbery use of force, PTAC, and felony murder, PTAC. The trial court ordered separate trials. A mistrial occurred due to juror misconduct, so the court held a second trial where the jury found Garner guilty on all 3 counts. On appeal the lead issue was whether the circuit court violated Garner’s confrontation rights by allowing the State to present his co-defendant’s testimony from the 1st trial at his 2nd trial. The answer, according to the court of appeals, is “no.” Garner’s challenges to the State’s amended information and to his sentence also failed.
Court of appeals finds search of home by off-duty cop is private, not government, search
State v. Ricardo L. Conception, 2016AP1282-CR, 3/28, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Concepcion pled to 10 counts of possession of child pornography. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of his suppression motion because the search of his home was a private-party search, not a government search. It also held that Concepcion’s sentence (9 in, 6 out) was not unduly harsh, and his trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to tell the sentencing court that he is a “hero” of “exemplary character and stature.”
Court of Appeals asks SCOW to review juvenile life sentences
State v. Curtis L. Walker & State v. Omer Ninham, 2016AP1058 & 2016AP2098, Districts I & III, 3/6/18; case activity (including briefs): Walker; Ninham
Issue:
We certify these appeals to determine whether Wisconsin case law regarding life sentences without parole for juvenile murderers comports with recent pronouncements from the United States Supreme Court, and whether the sentencing courts in these cases adequately considered the mitigating effect of the defendants’ youth in accord with those Supreme Court pronouncements.
Mistake about whether sentence would be served in jail or prison doesn’t require sentence modification or resentencing
State v. Bruce D. Johnson, 2017AP834-CR, District 3, 3/6/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Even if the sentencing court erroneously thought the sentence he was imposing on Johnson would be served in the jail rather than prison, that mistake doesn’t provide grounds for a sentence modification or resentencing.
SCOTUS to decide whether 8th Amendment bars execution of 67 year-old with dementia who can’t recall his crime
Happily Wisconsin does not have the death penalty, so SCOTUS’s decision to grant cert in Madison v. Alabama, USSC No. 17-7505, is not directly relevant to our clients. But the issues for review, pasted in below are certainly interesting. Madison’s counsel of record is Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative.
(1) Whether, consistent with the Eighth Amendment, and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ford v.
Court of appeals affirms reduction of sentence credit, scolds counsel for appellant and respondent
State v. Lance P. Howard, 2017AP677-688-CR, 2/21/18, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
How to irritate the court of appeals. If you haven’t figure that out yet, read this opinion.
Do risk assessment tools make any difference in criminal justice outcomes?
This new paper examines data from over 1 million criminal cases in an attempt to answer that question.
SCOW to decide whether courts may impose criminal penalty where suspect refuses a warrantless blood draw
State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 2016AP2483-CR, petition for review 0f an unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 11/13/17; case activity (including briefs)
Issues:
1. Under Missouri v. McNeely and Birchfield v. North Dakota, may a circuit court impose a harsher criminal punishment because a defendant exercised his constitutional right to refuse a warrantless blood draw?
2. Whether Dalton was denied the effective assistance of counsel where his attorney failed to move to suppress blood evidence on grounds that police lacked exigent circumstances to forcibly draw his blood without a warrant?
SCOW will address whether mandatory DNA surcharge violates ex post facto clause
State v. Jamal L. Williams, 2017 WI App 46, cross petitions for review granted 10/10/17; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (composed by On Point)
1. Is the imposition of a single mandatory $250 DNA surcharge an ex post facto violation with respect to a defendant who committed his offense when the surcharge was discretionary and who previously had provided a DNA sample in another case?
2. Is Jamal Williams entitled to resentencing because the circuit court sentenced him based on an improper factor, namely, the fact that Williams refused to stipulate to restitution for which he was not legally responsible?