By: dmc-admin//August 31, 2010//
Sentencing
Modification; frivolous appeals
Scott Alan Heimermann appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for sentence modification. The issues are whether any of the following postconviction developments constitute new factors warranting sentence modification: (1) Heimermann’s patent and technology business; (2) Heimermann’s alleged cooperation with law enforcement; or (3) the prosecutor’s alleged withholding of information at sentencing explaining that “the state created the crime charged.” We conclude that none of the foregoing constitutes new factors: (1) Heimermann has not shown how his patent or business frustrates the purpose of the original sentence; (2) Heimermann has not proffered sufficient corroboration of his cooperation; and (3) we have previously rejected his charge against the prosecutor; it is not new and we will not permit Heimermann to relitigate it. We further impose a sanction because this appeal is frivolous. As a result, Heimermann must pay the existing sanctions imposed against him by the state and federal courts for his previous repeatedly frivolous filings before he may be entitled to a fee waiver in conjunction with the case underlying this appeal for any future filings. Therefore, we impose that condition and affirm the trial court’s order summarily denying his sentence modification motion. This opinion will not be published.
2009AP1092-CR State v. Heimermann
Dist I, Milwaukee County, Konkol, J., Per Curiam
Attorneys: For Appellant: Heimermann, Scott Alan, pro se; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Weinstein, Warren D., Madison