Sentencing – Undue harshness

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Undue harshness

Guadalupe Jose Rivas appeals his judgment of conviction and a trial court order denying his postconviction motion for resentencing. Rivas pled guilty to the charge of theft from a person. He was sentenced to two years of initial confinement and two years of extended supervision. Rivas filed a motion for resentencing, contending that during the sentencing hearing: (1) the trial court relied on four inaccurate facts, and (2) the sentence was unduly harsh. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Rivas also argues that the sentence was formulaic. We conclude that Rivas has not established that the admitted inaccuracies were facts that the trial court relied upon at sentencing. We also conclude that in view of Rivas’s criminal record, his character, and the nature of the offense, the sentence imposed is not unduly harsh. Finally, we conclude that Rivas has not established that the sentence was the result of a formula rather than the proper exercise of discretion. We affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP2777-CR State v. Rivas

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Cimpl, J., Kessler, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Tauscheck, George, Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; O’Brien, Daniel J., Madison

Full Text