≡ Menu

4. 973.19, sentence mod.

State v. Thatcher R. Sehrbrock, 2022AP2153-CR, 8/8/24, District IV (authored); case activity Sehrbrock, convicted of robbery with use of force as PTAC, appeals the judgment of conviction and order denying his postconviction motion in which he challenged a condition of probation requiring that an ignition interlock device be installed on any motor vehicle that he… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Robert M. Schueller, 2023AP1755-CR, 6/20/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity In a decision recommended for publication, the court of appeals holds that advances in PTSD treatment constitute a new factor, where the sentencing court expressly relied on its understanding that Schueller’s PTSD was uncurable in determining his risk to the public and… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Robert L. Noll, 2002 WI App 273 Issue: Whether a new-factor based motion to modify sentence may be rejected as untimely under § 973.19. Holding: The motion invoked the trial court’s inherent authority to modify, and therefore § 973.19 and its 90-day deadline was inapplicable. ¶5. The two procedures are distinct. Under § 973.19 a defendant… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Joseph Scaccio III, 2000 WI App 265, 240 Wis.2d 95 For Scaccio: Jim D. Scott Issue: Whether Scaccio’s motion to modify a sentencing imposed after revocation was untimely because he failed to appeal the original judgment of conviction. Holding/Analysis: The principle is readily stated — you can take a direct appeal of a… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS