Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

3. Consecutive sentences

State v. Antoine Leshawn Douglas, 2013 WI App 52; case activity Miranda violation — interrogation by police After a lawful arrest, but before being given Miranda warnings, Douglas initiated a conversation with the arresting officer in which he stated he wanted “to work” for the police by offering information about some marijuana dealers. After the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Cesar Deleon v. Circuit Court for Brown County, 2012AP278, District 3, 10/10/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity Summary Contempt, §§ 785.01(1)(a), 785.04(2)(b) – “Unit” of Sanctionable Conduct  Separate, consecutive punishments meted out for each of 11 profane utterances and 1 act of spitting during brief exchange with judge upheld, against… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09 For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell Issue/Holding: The sentencing court need not state separately why it chooses consecutive rather than concurrent terms; rather, this determination is made by considering the same factors as inform sentence length, ¶¶45-46.  … Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09 For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell Issue/Holding: Sentence was based on proper exercise of discretion, including gravity of offense and defendant’s character and “long-term treatment needs,” ¶¶38-44.  … Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07 For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear Issue/Holding: The sentencing court satisfied Gallion’s required linkage: ¶11      … Here, the court explained that it did not consider Thexton’s conduct so serious that it required Thexton to be incarcerated for the length of time that might be appropriate for other… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Review – Factors – Gallion – Generally

State v. Chad W. Ziegler, 2006 WI App 49, PFR filed 3/13/06 For Ziegler: Kenneth P. Casey, UW Law School Issue/Holding: ¶32      We conclude that the trial court’s sentencing remarks satisfy Hall as to the reasons for the consecutive sentences and Gallion as to the reasons for the length of the sentence. As noted, the trial court engaged in a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Sentencing – Review – Consecutive Sentences

State v. Lonnie C. Davis, 2005 WI App 98 For Davis: Pamela Moorshead Issue/Holding: ¶24 Davis next contends that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it imposed consecutive sentences without an adequate explanation of why that was the minimum amount of time necessary.  We reject this claim.¶25      The trial court explained why the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05 For Matke: James B. Connell Issue/Holding: ¶17. Finally, Matke argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered, without explanation, that Matke’s present sentence be consecutive to any other sentences he was then serving. … ¶18. The sole infirmity that Matke cites… Read More

{ 0 comments }