on review of published decision; case activity Issue (composed by On Point) Whether a circuit court has inherent authority to order destruction of a presentence investigation report (albeit under “unique facts”), after sentencing and entry of judgment. And as to those unique facts? The PSI at issue contained information about uncharged offenses that the trial court determined… Read more
C. Factors
Question Presented: The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual directs a court to “use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced” unless “the court determines that use of the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United… Read more
State v. Brandon M. Melton, 2012 WI App 95, WSC review granted 11/14/12(recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; case activity Under “unique facts,” the circuit court possessed inherent authority to order destruction of a PSI: the PSI contained uncharged offenses irrelevant to sentencing whose inclusion was improper under DOC rules; and, though sealed, it coexisted with a second… Read more
State v. Jeffrey S. Firebaugh, 2011 WI App 154 (recommended for publication); pro se; case activity Because the Wisconsin Sentencing Commission had created no guideline “applicable” to Firebaugh’s offense (homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle), he isn’t entitled to resentencing on the basis of failure to “consider” a (non-existent) guideline. ¶12 At the time… Read more
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sterling: Dianne M. Erickson; BiC; Resp.; Reply Charging Decision – Judicial Involvement Increase in the charge, following trial judge’s veiled suggestion to the prosecutor that such an increase would be appropriate, wasn’t occasioned by judicial interference with prosecutorial discretion, ¶¶16-22. Initially charged with first-degree reckless… Read more
State v. Thomas H.L. Barfell, 2010 WI App 61; for Barfell: Roberta A. Heckes; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.; App. Supp. Br.; Resp. Supp. Br. Sentencing – Guidelines, General Purpose ¶7 While Barfell is correct that he “has a due process right ‘to be sentenced on the basis of true and correct information’ pertaining to ‘the offense and the circumstances of its… Read more
State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28 For Prineas: Raymond M. Dall’osto, Kathryn A. Keppel Issue/Holding: The sentencing court properly considered a count for which Prineas was acquitted, as well as uncharged, “sexually inappropriate behavior,” ¶28, citing State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7. … Read more
State v. Corey E. Young, 2009 WI App 22, PFR filed 1/7/09 For Young: Jeffrey W. Jensen Issue/Holding: The trial court, in sentencing for first-degree intentional homicide, sufficiently explained why it was assigning extended supervision eligibility of 50 years’ confinement (rather than the 40 recommended by the State). Weight given each sentencing factor is committed to the… Read more
