02-0247 State v. Tappa

Listen to this article

“There is no requirement in Wis. Stat. ‘ 971.20 that a judge must inform defendants of their right to substitution of judge. Neither does the statute state that a judge must provide facts bearing on a defendant’s exercise of this right. Tappa cites no case law or statutory support for his claim that a judge must disclose this sort of information. …

“Tappa’s argument has no logical stopping point. For example, what exactly would a judge have to disclose?3 This could range from being a victim of an identical crime to any crime at all. Additionally, what would be the time limit? Here, the judge was a victim of a crime ten years earlier. Based on Tappa’s argument, a judge may have to reveal any crime of which he or she was ever a victim, regardless how much time has passed. In Tappa’s case, the judge stated that he did not even recall the burglary to his cottage until Tappa’s co-defendant’s attorney reminded him. Tappa’s argument is impractical and unworkable.”

Further, we reject defendant’s contention that the sentencing judge improperly placed too much emphasis on the fact that the burglaries took place in a rural setting.

“We determine, however, that the court did take into account the appropriate factors in its sentencing determination. The court noted the seriousness of the offense, observing that burglaries are dangerous felonies in which both the perpetrator and the owners of the property could easily be hurt. The court then analyzed Tappa’s character, commenting that Tappa was not respectful of the police. The court also characterized Tappa’s prior record as “atrocious.” Tappa has been convicted of multiple burglaries as well as drug charges. Finally, the court turned to the needs of society, stating that Tappa was not a good risk to the community and would continue to commit crimes. Because the trial court clearly laid out its reasoning for the sentence, analyzing each of the three primary factors, the sentence was fully within the court’s discretion.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Marinette County, Miron, J., Peterson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Kevin D. Musolf, Appleton

For Respondent: Warren D. Weinstein, Madison; Joseph J. Klumb, Marinette