≡ Menu

Sentencing Review – Factors – TIS

State v. Edward W. Fisher, 2005 WI App 175
For Fisher: Eileen Miller Carter


¶21      Fisher argues that the circuit court did not satisfy the mandate in State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶¶39, 76, 678 N.W.2d 197, that the court exercise its discretion on a “rational and explainable basis.” We understand him to assert that the court should have explained with specificity the comparative weight it ascribed to each factor and exactly how these factors translated into a specific number of years.

¶22      We hold that Fisher is not entitled to this degree of specificity. See id., ¶¶53-55 (rejecting Gallion’s assertion that the court had to justify the specific number of years and specifically describe the comparative weight of each factor). The evil Gallion sought to remedy was the mechanistic application of the three sentencing factors, in which a circuit court simply described the facts of the case, mentioned the three sentencing factors, and imposed a sentence. Id., ¶¶26, 55. We perceive that the court was addressing what this court had also been seeing over the years in appeals involving sentencing discretion.

¶24      We do not accept Fisher’s contention that the circuit court’s sentencing remarks personified the evils the Gallion court sought to remedy …. The court plainly considered all three of the primary sentencing factors in light of the facts of Fisher’s case. …


{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment