State v. Michael J. Grabowski, No. 2009AP2118-CR, District I, 7/7/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Grabowski: Jamie F. Wiemer; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Sentencing – Accurate Information
¶5 Grabowski argues that the circuit court sentenced him based on inaccurate information. A defendant claiming that a sentencing court relied on inaccurate information must show that: (1) the information was inaccurate; and (2) the sentencing court actually relied on the inaccurate information. State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, ¶26, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 192–193, 717 N.W.2d 1, 7. We review de novo whether a defendant has been denied the right to be sentenced on accurate information. Id., 2006 WI 66, ¶9, 291 Wis. 2d at 185, 717 N.W.2d at 3.
The sentencing court didn’t rely on the information challenged as inaccurate, dooming the argument, ¶¶7-8.
Sentencing – New Factor
Postsentencing determination of restitution is not a new factor under the circumstances, ¶11: “The postsentencing restitution determination is not a new factor because the sentencing court knew the amount of restitution was in dispute … Thus, the circuit court did not rely on the specific amount of the restitution and, therefore, the final restitution determination did not frustrate the purpose of the sentence.”