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.
Sentence Modification — New Factor — Health
State v. Peter C. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, PFR filed 4/3/03
For Ramuta: Peter M. Koneazny, Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
¶21. Further, Ramuta’s obesity-related health problems and his resulting shorter-than-normal life expectancy are also not new factors. See Michels, 150 Wis. 2d at 99-100, 441 N.W.2d at 280-281 (defendant’s health and its post-sentence worsening not new factors).
Sentence Modification — New Factor — Subsequent Sentence
State v. Peter C. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, PFR filed 4/3/03
For Ramuta: Peter M. Koneazny, Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Subsequent sentences on charges pending at the time of this sentencing didn’t amount to a new factor, State v. Norton, 2001 WI App 245, distinguished:
¶20.
Resentencing — after grant of partial relief
State v. William J. Church (II), 2003 WI 74, reversing 2002 WI App 212, 257 Wis. 2d 442, 650 N.W.2d 873; earlier history: State v. William J. Church, 223 Wis.2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998), petition for review dismissed as improvidently granted, 2000 WI 90
For Church: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether resentencing is required on all remaining,
Modification — New Factor — General Test
State v. Peter C. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, PFR filed 4/3/03
For Ramuta: Peter M. Koneazny, Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
¶8. The law appropriately recognizes that sentences may be based on what is unknowingly incomplete information, and, if they are, that there should be some mechanism to correct a resulting injustice. Thus, if after sentencing it turns out that there was something that would have been important to the sentencing court but was either unknown or unknowingly overlooked,
SVP – Trial: Evidence — Jail Credit Not Relevant
State v. Shawn Virlee, 2003 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/3/03
For Virlee: Jack E. Schairer
Issue/Holding: Barring introduction of the post-petition grant of sentence credit was proper: this evidence “would have been irrelevant to whether the State filed its petition within ninety days of Virlee’s release and would have confused the jury on this issue.” ¶19.
Modification — New Factor — TIS-II, Change in Offense Classification and Penalty Structure
State v. Jonathan R. Torres, 2003 WI App 199, PFR filed 9/18/03
For Torres: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether reclassification of Torres’ offense by TIS-II, 2001 Wis. Act 109 §§545-559, which substantially reduced the maximum penalty, amounts to a new factor that would support reduction of his sentence imposed under the prior, TIS-I regime.
Holding:
¶7 First, we conclude that a change in the classification of a crime,
SVP – Pretrial – Petition — Timeliness — Post-Petition Grant of Jail Credit Not Affecting<
State v. Shawn Virlee, 2003 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/3/03
For Virlee: Jack E. Schairer
Issue: Whether post-petition grant of jail credit deprived the court of competency to proceed, where the petition was filed within 90 days of the pre-grant release date, but would be untimely when calculated against the post-grant date.
Holding:
¶17. Virlee claims the court lost its competency to proceed with his commitment proceeding when it retroactively granted him sentence credit that placed his mandatory release date prior to the petition’s filing date.
SVP – Post-Disposition – Discharge Petition — Probable Cause Hearing
State v. Henry Pocan, 2003 WI App 233
For Pocan: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Pocan established probable cause for a discharge hearing where the psychologist conducting the reevaluation and using actuarial tables unavailable at the time of original commitment found no substantial probability of reoffending:
¶11. The State argues that Wis. Stat. ch. 980 thus requires the court to focus on progress or improvement in Pocan’s condition.
SVP – Pretrial Release
State v. Shawn Virlee, 2003 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/3/03
For Virlee: Jack E. Schairer
Issue: Whether ch. 980 violates due process and/or equal protection because it doesn’t allow for pretrial release.
Holding:
¶14. We decline to address Virlee’s due process and equal protection arguments because he fails to establish, and we do not see, how the statute’s lack of a provision for pretrial release affects the trial court’s judgment.
Sentencing – Modification – New Factor – General Test
State v. Randy D. Stafford, 2003 WI App 138
For Stafford: Robert G. LeBell
Issue/Holding:
¶12. … To obtain sentence modification, a defendant must establish that (1) a new factor exists, and (2) the new factor justifies sentence modification. State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989). Whether a fact or set of facts constitutes a new factor presents a legal issue which we decide de novo.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.