Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

02-1431 State v. Ramuta

By: dmc-admin//March 10, 2003//

02-1431 State v. Ramuta

By: dmc-admin//March 10, 2003//

Listen to this article

As the trial court noted: “The defendant appeared before this court with fourteen prior convictions stemming from seven different counties and commencing in 1982. His record is atrocious, and the court gave considerable weight to the need to protect the community and to the defendant’s inability to conform his conduct in the community. The court could easily have sentenced him to the maximum fifteen years in prison for each offense as the Waukesha county court ultimately did, but it factored his age into the weighing process and imposed less than one half of what it could have imposed. The court intended that the defendant remain in prison virtually for the remainder of his life and continue in supervision until a very old age. Consecutive sentences were imposed to emphasize that each separate crime, each of which involved a separate decision on the part of the defendant, had a separate impact on the defendant’s life.”

Further, “defendant has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that either the Waukesha sentencing was unknown or overlooked, or that the sentences imposed by the court in Waukesha frustrated the intent of the trial court’s sentencing scheme under review here. The Waukesha sentences are not new factors any more than would be,… sentences later imposed following a revocation of probation. …

“Further, Ramuta’s obesity-related health problems and his resulting shorter-than-normal life expectancy are also not new factors. … Ramuta not only knew about his condition when he appeared before the trial court in Milwaukee, but, contrary to his contention, the trial court’s sentencing comments do not envision either its expectation or desire that Ramuta would actually survive his confinement; the trial court merely wanted to assure, as it explained in its written decision denying Ramuta’s motion for postconviction relief, that Ramuta, if released, would no longer be able to terrorize the community.”

Judgment and order affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Konkol, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Richard D. Martin, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; Sarah K. Larson, 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