State v. Crystal L. Bizzle, 222 Wis. 2d 100, 585 N.W. 899 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bizzle: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
Bizzle argues that the sentencing court erred in concluding that she required extensive rehabilitation. … First, her successful completion of an educational program, after sentencing, is not evidence that the court acted unreasonably or was not justified in concluding that she required extensive rehabilitation. A sentencing court is not required to look into the future ….
Second, Bizzle overlooks the evidence available to the court at the time of sentencing. … We conclude that the sentencing court reasonably relied upon the facts and reasonable inferences that Bizzle needed rehabilitative services and was justified in considering her treatment needs when imposing sentence.
