Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Sentencing Review – Factors – TIS
State v. Edward W. Fisher, 2005 WI App 175 For Fisher: Eileen Miller Carter Issue/Holding: ¶21 Fisher argues that the circuit court did not satisfy the mandate in State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶¶39, 76, 678 N.W.2d 197, that the court exercise its discretion on a “rational and explainable basis.” We […]
Sentencing – Factors – Proof of, Generally
State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding: Wisconsin discretionary guideline regime is not governed by the holdings of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), ¶¶20-24. The latter cases are implicated only when a […]
Sentencing Factors – Prior Juvenile Adjudications (Where Unrepresented)
State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding: ¶13 Montroy also argues that the PSI improperly included two of his juvenile adjudications, when there was no evidence that he was represented by counsel. [5] The State concedes that the Department of Corrections guidelines mandate that unrepresented juvenile […]
Sentencing Review – Factors – Public Protection
State v. Eduardo Jose Trigueros, 2005 WI App 112 For Trigueros: Eileen Miller Carter Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised sentencing discretion by placing too much weight on the need to protect the public, by placing defendant on probation with one year in the House of Correction, on possession with intent to deliver one gram […]
Sentencing Review – Factors – Youthfulness of Defendant
State v. Lonnie C. Davis, 2005 WI App 98 For Davis: Pamela Moorshead Issue: Whether the sentencing court erroneously exercised discretion by failing to consider the defendant’s youthfulness (14 years 9 months) at the time he committed the sexual assaults. Holding: ¶16 A review of the sentencing transcript demonstrates that the trial court did not erroneously […]
Sentencing Review – Factors – Probation
State v. Eduardo Jose Trigueros, 2005 WI App 112 For Trigueros: Eileen Miller Carter Issue/Holding: ¶8 Second, Trigueros claims that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion because it did not consider probation as an option. Again, we disagree. In each case, the sentence imposed shall “call for the minimum amount of custody or confinement […]
§ 973.195, TIS Sentence Adjustment Petition – Exercise of Discretion
State v. David S. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, on bypass For Stenklyft: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶126 [T]he record of the proceedings must clearly demonstrate that the circuit court exercised its discretion and weighed the appropriate factors when the court reached its decision on sentence adjustment. An example of such balancing would be […]
Separation of Powers Doctrine – Prosecutorial Veto and § 973.195, TIS Sentence Adjustment
State v. David S. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, on bypass For Stenklyft: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The prosecutorial veto written into the TIS sentence-adjustment provision, § 973.195, is unconstitutional: ¶83 … “[S]hall” is interpreted as directory, thereby giving a circuit court discretion to accept or reject an objection from a district attorney on a […]
Sentence Modification/Review: Sentence Adjustment, § 973.195: Applicability to TIS-I
State v. James Hubert Tucker, Jr., 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals For Tucker: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶18 An analysis of 2001 Wis. Act 109 by the Legislative Reference Bureau clearly supports the conclusion that persons sentenced under TIS-I are able to utilize the procedure set forth in Wis. […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Adequate Investigation – Failure to Investigate Facts (Impeachment of Key Witnesses
State v. Jeannie M.P., 2005 WI App 183 For Jeannie M.P.: Michael Yovovich, Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Where counsel knew, or should have known, of evidence establishing possible motives for each of the two crucial State’s witnesses; and where adducing evidence of those motives would have been consistent with the chosen theory of defense, […]
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.