Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

5. Inaccurate information

For latest on this subject, see today’s issue of Inside Track, which features comments by Wisconsin’s expert on evidence-based sentencing, Professor Cecelia Klingele… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Java I. Orr, 2016AP2009, 7/5/17, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) Orr raises and loses 3 issues relating to the sentence credit that he received in this case. He argues that (1) he should have been allowed withdraw his plea because trial counsel gave him incorrect infromation regarding… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jesse T. Riemer, 2017 WI App 48; case activity (including briefs) In what appears to be the first case of its kind, the court of appeals addresses the standard for reviewing the sentence imposed on a member of the Wisconsin National Guard after he was convicted of various offenses. Concluding it should apply the same… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Loomis has made the NYTimes again. See today’s article by Adam Liptak: Sent to Prison by Software’s Secret Algorithms… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Thomas G. St. Peter, 2016AP683-CR, District 1, 4/18/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) St. Peter is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the judge violated his due process rights when it relied on inaccurate information to jump the parties’ joint recommendation for time served and impose more jail time. State v… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. David L. Johnson, 2015AP2605-CR, 4/4/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) A jury found Johnson guilty of aggravated battery and false imprisonment but acquitted him of sexual assault and strangulation. The court imposed 2 consecutive 6-year sentences.  Johnson appealed and argued that the postconviction court erred in denying his claim for ineffective assistance of… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Last summer, SCOW held that, if used properly, a circuit court’s consideration of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing does not violate due process. See State v. Loomis and our post. Loomis filed a petition for writ of certiorari which presents this question for review: State courts increasingly are relying on risk assessment instruments at… Read More

{ 1 comment }

State v. Matthew Allen Lilek, 2014AP784-CR, 10/4/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) Lilek’s trial counsel raised his competency to stand trial and the court-appointed expert found him incompetent and unlikely to become so. The state, dissatisfied with that result, requested another evaluation, and the court obliged. This new evaluation reached… Read More

{ 0 comments }