Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sentencing – Improper factors – reliance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 27, 2015//

Sentencing – Improper factors – reliance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 27, 2015//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Criminal

Sentencing – Improper factors – reliance

Although it was error to attach statements that were made to the defendant’s probation officer to the PSI, the defendant failed to show that the circuit court actually relied on the statements in imposing sentence.

“Our conclusion, based on our review of the entire sentencing transcript, is supported by the circuit court’s order denying Alexander’s motion for resentencing. The circuit court explained that ‘the court and the parties were aware of the bigger picture of what had been going on, and the defendant’s statement to his agent did not reveal anything not already known to the court.’ The court noted alternative sources for the information included in Alexander’s compelled statements. First, the court noted that Alexander admitted to the Silver Mills forgeries when he entered his guilty plea. Second, the court explained that the body of the PSI referred to an amount of loss suffered by U.S. Bank greater than the sum of the Silver Mills checks that were the basis for Alexander’s conviction. In that regard, the court referred to a U.S. Bank senior fraud investigator’s statement in the Crime Victim Impact Statement section of the PSI. The investigator placed the amount of loss from ‘Danny and his accomplices’ at $12,000, while Alexander was convicted of check forgeries totaling $3,210.32. The circuit court explained that given the additional sources in the PSI indicating Alexander’s potential involvement in other forgeries, the attachment of Alexander’s compelled statements that also spoke of additional forgeries, did not affect the sentence it imposed. The court termed the attachment, ‘harmless at best.’ Third, the circuit court’s order denying Alexander’s motion for resentencing reiterated that the court did not actually rely on Alexander’s compelled statements in sentencing him.”

Reversed.

2013AP843-CR State v. Alexander

Roggensack, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests