On Point: 10. Sentence after revocation

State v. Ricky Rodriguez, 2021AP2053-Cr, 6/14/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Rodriguez was convicted of two misdemeanors and placed on probation in early 2017. a few months later, he committed two felonies and was sentenced to prison. His probation for the misdemeanors was revoked, and he was sentenced to 9 months in jail consecutive to any other sentence. In his pro se appeal, he argued that his sentence after revocation cannot, as a matter of law, run consecutive to the sentence for his felonies based on Drinkwater v. State, 69 Wis. 2d 60, 230 N.W.2d 126 (1975). The court of appeals says that it can.

State v. Patrick P. Haynes, 2015AP2176-CR, District 3, 8/16/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court didn’t erroneously exercise its sentencing discretion by exceeding the OWI guidelines when sentencing Haynes for OWI 3rd after his probation for the offense was revoked.

State v. James Robert Thomas, No. 2010AP332-CR, District III, 7/27/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The sentencing court exhibited objective bias, requiring resentencing, when it imposed the maximum on sentencing after revocation, given the court’s threat when it placed Thomas on probation to do just that if his probation were revoked.

State v. Clayborn L. Walker, 2008 WI 34, reversing 2007 WI App 142
For Walker: Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue: Whether the judge is required, at a TIS reconfinement hearing, to have read the original sentencing transcript.

Holding:

¶3        We agree with the State and conclude that State v. Gee [3] misinterpreted our decision in Brown.

State v. Twaun L. Gee, 2007 WI App 32
For Gee: Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding: The holding of State v. Brandon E. Jones, 2005 WI App 259, ¶13, that the reconfinement judge need not review the original sentencing transcript was overruled by State v. John C. Brown, 2006 WI 131, ¶38:

¶14   In Brown,

State v. John C. Brown, 2006 WI 131, affirming 2006 WI App 44
For Brown: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Amicus: Robert R. Henak and Amelia L. Bizzaro; Walter J. Dickey & David E. Schultz

Issue/Holding:

¶22     We conclude that a reconfinement decision, like an initial sentencing decision, involves the circuit court’s discretion, and we review the circuit court’s decision to determine whether that discretion was erroneously exercised. 

State v. Donald Odom, 2006 WI App 145
For Odom: Eileen Miller Carter; J.C. Moore, SPD, Milwaukee Trial

Issue/Holding: The requirement of sentencing after probation revocation that the judge review the original sentencing transcript, State v. Reynolds, 2002 WI App 15, 249 Wis. 2d 798, 643 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. App. 2001), does not apply to reconfinement after revocation of extended supervision, State v.

State v. Brandon E. Jones, 2005 WI App 259
For Jones: Amelia L. Bizarro

Issue: Whether the sentencing court provided sufficient reasons for Jones’s reconfinement following revocation of extended supervision.

Holding:

¶9        ….  The key is for the circuit court to provide sufficient information about its reasoning so as to allow for meaningful review. The “need for meaningful appellate review of a trial court’s decision to take away a person’s liberty must be our polestar.” Swiams,

State v. Brian C. Wegner, 2000 WI App 231, 239 Wis.2d 96, 619 N.W.2d 289
For Wegner: Scott A. Szabrowicz

Issue: Whether the sentencing court erroneously exercised discretion, in sentencing after revocation, by failing to consider primary sentencing factors.

Holding:

¶9 We conclude that when the same judge presides at the sentencing after revocation and the original sentencing, the judge does not have to restate the reasons supporting the original sentencing;