State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear
Issue/Holding: The sentencing court satisfied Gallion’s required linkage:
¶11 … Here, the court explained that it did not consider Thexton’s conduct so serious that it required Thexton to be incarcerated for the length of time that might be appropriate for other sex offenders, especially in light of his relative lack of a prior record. Nevertheless, the court noted that Thexton’s repeated violations of his probation conditions reflected a failure to understand that he must abide by rules, and it stated that a significant period of incarceration could help to bring that message home. The court also stated that Thexton might be in need of treatment that he could receive while incarcerated. Sentencing is not an exact science; and we are satisfied that there is a reasonable relationship between the objectives of Thexton’s sentence and its length. [6]
