≡ Menu

Enhancer — Allocation

State v. Kent Kleven, 2005 WI App 66
For Kleven: Roberta A. Heckes


¶14. We conclude that, provided the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment established for the base offense, a court’s remarks attributing a portion of the sentence to an applicable enhancer does not constitute grounds to vacate that portion of the sentence. As the supreme court explained in State v. Upchurch, 101 Wis. 2d 329, 336, 305 N.W.2d 57 (1981), a sentencing proceeding is “not a game,” in which “a misstatement by the trial judge would result in a windfall to the defendant.”


{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment