Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-3116-CR State v. Burgess

By: dmc-admin//August 6, 2001//

00-3116-CR State v. Burgess

By: dmc-admin//August 6, 2001//

Listen to this article

Bernard Burgess appeals from the judgment of conviction entered after he pled no contest to one count of delivery of a controlled substance – cocaine, and the trial court sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay a $5,000 fine. Burgess also appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Burgess argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion seeking either sentence modification or a new sentencing hearing because the court: (1) failed to consider and/or correct errors in the information it received at the original sentencing; (2) denied him the right of allocution at the second sentencing hearing; (3) failed to consider his ability to pay before ordering a $5,000 fine; (4) demonstrated bias against him by criticizing his invocation of his speedy trial rights; and (5) improperly rejected his request for sentence modification and erroneously exercised its discretion by reinstating his eight-year prison sentence.

We are not persuaded by Burgess’s arguments and affirm.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Schellinger, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Andrew Lawrence Franklin, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; Sally L. Wellman, Madison

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