Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

H. Modification/Review

State v. Donavinn D. Coffee, 2020 WI 1, 1/9/20, 2017AP2292, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs) Where to begin? Well, this is a blog by appellate lawyers, so forgive us if we dwell first on the fact that our law-developing court has once again elected not to develop the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

You’ve read a lot about the use of algorithms at the sentencing stage of criminal proceedings, but they are also used at the bail and parole stages. This new paper looks at the bias embedded in algorithms (including the STATIC-99R) and zeroes in on our own State v. Loomis… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Shawn A. Anderson, 2019AP173-CR, District 3, 11/13/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) The circuit court’s sentencing remarks considered in their entirety showed the court properly exercised its discretion in ordering Anderson to be subject to lifetime supervision under § 939.615. Anderson was charged with and convicted of child sexual assault… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Vaylan G. Morris, 2018AP1694-CR, Distrct 1, 10/1/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) O.M., an infant, died while c0-sleeping with Morris and her mom. Morris admitted that he may have rolled over onto her and pled guilty to 2nd degree recklessly endangering safety, party to a crime, At sentencing, the State… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Dominique M. Anwar, 2018AP2222-CR, 6/25/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) The court of appeals rejects Anwar’s arguments that she’s entitled to resentencing because the State offered certain information at her sentencing hearing without first disclosing the information and giving her notice it would use the information. Anwar… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Dustin M. Yanda, 2018AP412-CR, District 3, 6/18/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) In State v. Harbor, 2011 WI 28, 333 Wis. 2d 53, 797 N.W.2d 828, the supreme court held that a defendant seeking a “new factor” sentence modification doesn’t need to prove that the new factor “frustrates the purpose”… Read More

{ 0 comments }

McKinney v. Arizona, USSC No. 18-1109, certiorari granted 6/10/19 Questions presented: 1. Whether the Arizona Supreme Court was required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted 2. Whether the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982), requires resentencing. Decision below… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, USSC No. 18-7739, cert granted 5/30/19 Question presented: Whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence. USSC docket; SCOTUSblog page (including links to briefs and commentary) In the 5th Circuit, counsel must object to the sentence after… Read More

{ 0 comments }