State v. Lonnie C. Davis, 2005 WI App 98
For Davis: Pamela Moorshead
¶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 maximum term was required in this case.
¶26 … The court must provide an explanation for the general range of the sentence imposed, not for the precise number of years chosen, and it need not explain why it did not impose a lesser sentence. State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶¶49-50, 54-55, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. The trial court provided an adequate explanation for the general range of the sentence imposed.
¶27 We also conclude that there was an adequate explanation as to why consecutive rather than concurrent sentences were imposed. The trial court indicated that it was imposing consecutive sentences because each count was an independent act, independent of the other, and independent of the previous sentence Davis was currently serving.