By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 12, 2011//
Criminal Procedure
Discovery; in camera inspections
Saterus Glass appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on his no contest plea to two counts of being a party to the crime of burglary and from a judgment of conviction of first-degree sexual assault of a child, incest with a child, and second-degree sexual assault entered on a jury verdict. Regarding the sexual assault convictions, he argues that the trial court should have conducted an in camera review of redacted portions of police reports that the prosecution refused to disclose as part of discovery. He also claims entitlement to resentencing because the trial court did not utilize the sentencing guidelines. We reject his claims and affirm the judgments. This opinion will not be published.
2009AP2446-CR, 2009AP2447-CR State v. Glass
Dist II, Ozaukee County, Wolfgram, J., Per Curiam
Attorneys: For Appellant: Haney, Robert E., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Losse, Michael J., Madison; Gerol, Adam Y., Port Washington