2009AP3031-CR State v. Nisiewicz

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 25, 2011//

Listen to this article

Sentencing
DNA surcharge

Edward Thomas Nisiewicz, pro se, appeals from an order denying his motion to “quash” or “vacate” the DNA surcharge that was imposed when he was sentenced in 2003. Citing State v. Cherry, 2008 WI App 80, 312 Wis. 2d 203, 752 N.W.2d 393, Nisiewicz argues that the sentencing court erroneously exercised its discretion when it imposed the DNA surcharge because it failed to set forth adequate reasons for imposing the surcharge. Because Nisiewicz’s motion was filed seven years after judgment was entered, it was untimely under Wis. Stat. § 973.19(1)(a) (2007-08). We therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying Nisiewicz’s motion. This opinion will not be published.

2009AP3031-CR State v. Nisiewicz

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

Attorneys: For Appellant: Nisiewicz, Edward Thomas, pro se; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Larson, Sarah K., Madison

Full Text

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event