≡ Menu

Sentence review – Inaccurate Information

State v. Toronee L. Kimbrough, 2010AP2676-CR, District 1, 10/25/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Kimbrough: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The court rejects Kimbrough’s challenge to sentence, as based on 3 instances of alleged inaccuracies:

  1. the sentencing court’s reliance on the co-defendant’s statements as suggestive of Kimbrough’s own failure to accept responsibility for the crime (Kimbrough doesn’t meet his burden of showing erroneous attribution to him of the co-defendant’s statements, besides which any error would be harmless in light of admissions made by Kimbrough), ¶¶18-21;
  2. the number of rounds in Kimbrough’s gun (erroneously thought to be 32 when in fact it was 15, itself a “substantial number,” which was the crux of the matter), ¶¶22-24;
  3. Kimbrough’s remorse (sentencing court’s credibility determination that Kimbrough’s expressions of regret were insincere entitled to deference on review),  ¶¶25-26.

Statement of test for reviewing inaccurate-information claim recited, ¶17, principally, State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, ¶9, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1.

{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment