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 – Factors – Interplay with First Amendment-Protected Activity
State v. Aaron O. Schreiber, 2002 WI App 75, PFR filed 3/12/02 For Schreiber: William J. Donarski Issue/Holding: “A sentencing court may consider writings and statements otherwise protected so long as there is a sufficient nexus to the defendant’s conduct and where the writings are relevant to the issues involved.” ¶16, citing Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159, […]
Sentencing – Review — Harshness
State v. Christopher Kaczynski, 2002 WI App 276, PFR filed 11/20/02 For Kaczynski: Eugene Kaluzny Issue/Holding: Sentence of 10 years, where the conduct would have supported charges carrying 45 years, isn’t harsh. ¶13.
Sentencing – Factors — Refusal to Identify Accomplice
State v. Christopher Kaczynski, 2002 WI App 276, PFR filed 11/20/02 For Kaczynski: Eugene Kaluzny Issue/Holding: ¶9. It has long been the law in Wisconsin that, unless a defendant’s rights against self-incrimination are implicated (and Kaczynski makes no claim that they are), it is “entirely proper” for a trial court “to consider on sentencing, the […]
Sentencing – Review – Factors – Jail Credit as Affecting Length of Sentence
State v. Eric S. Fenz, 2002 WI App 244 For Fenz: Jacob W. Gobel Issue: Whether the sentencing court may take into account the amount of jail credit to be awarded, in the narrow instance where the court wants to assure a term of imprisonment sufficiently lengthy to allow exposure to a treatment program. Holding: ¶10. Fenz argues […]
Sentencing – Review – Excessiveness – Maximum Doesn’t “Shock Public Sentiment”
State v. Aaron O. Schreiber, 2002 WI App 75, PFR filed 3/12/02 For Schreiber: William J. Donarski Issue/Holding: The sentencing court properly considered the three primary sentencing factors — gravity of offense, defendant’s character, need to protect public — and the weight assigned each is delegated primarily to the trial court. (Schreiber’s argument that the sentencing […]
Sentencing – Review — Undue Harshness — Presumption of Correctness
State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue/Holding: A sentence well within the maximum (here, 44 years out of a possible 110) is presumptively not unduly harsh. ¶¶29-33.
Sentencing – Review — Inaccurate Information — Trial Court Disclaimer of Reliance not Controlling
State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02 For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Trial court disclaimer (via postconviction ruling) of reliance on information challenged as inaccurate isn’t binding: rather, appellate court “may independently review the record to determine the existence of any such reliance.” ¶¶27-28. Here, […]
Review — Forfeiture — “Excessive Fines Clause”
State v. Kirk J. Bergquist, 2002 WI App 39 For Berhquist: Steven H. Gibbs Issue: Whether the state’s refusal to return guns valued at between $5000 and $7,150, following conviction for disorderly conduct, violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause. Holding: ¶8. Although the term “forfeiture” does not appear in this statute, our supreme court has […]
Harsh and Excessive – Post-Sentencing Reduction of Maximum Penalty
State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265, 258 Wis. 2d 473, 654 N.W.2d 446 For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School Issue/Holding: Subsequent legislative reclassification of offense, which substantially reduced maximum penalty, didn’t make Gallion’s sentence harsh and […]
Sentencing – Review — Inaccurate Information — Procedure for Challenging
State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02 For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶22. A defendant who asks for resentencing because the court relied on inaccurate information must show both that the information was inaccurate and that the court relied on it. Id. The defendant […]
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.