Issue/Holding: Subsequent sentences on charges pending at the time of this sentencing didn’t amount to a new factor, State v. Norton, 2001 WI App 245, distinguished:
¶20. Ramuta has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that either the Waukesha sentencing was unknown or overlooked, or that the sentences imposed by the court in Waukesha frustrated the intent of the trial court’s sentencing scheme under review here. The Waukesha sentences are not new factors any more than would be, as Norton pointed out, sentences later imposed following a revocation of probation. Norton, 2001 WI App 245 at 10, 248 Wis. 2d at 168, 635 N.W.2d at 659 (“revocation of probation in another case does not ordinarily present a new factor”).