Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Double Jeopardy – Sentence: Defendant’s Fraud — No Expectation of Finality

State v. Ary L. Jones, 2002 WI App 208
For Jones: Arthur B. Nathan

Issue/Holding:

¶14. The rule we adopt in Wisconsin, therefore, is that when a defendant makes a fraudulent representation to the sentencing court and the court accepts and relies upon that representation in determining the length of the sentence, the defendant has no reasonable expectation of finality in the sentence. The court may later declare the sentence void and double jeopardy will not bar subsequent resentencing to place the defendant in the position he or she would have been in if the fraud or corruption had been exposed at the time of the original sentence. …

Here, the defendant’s lie was a substantial factor in the original sentence and the trial court therefore had authority to resentence. ¶18. (Court distinguishes between puffery/innocent-bragging/exaggeration, and fraud. ¶20. Court also says that the fraud need not amount to a new factor. Id. n. 2.)

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment