Sexual Assault — mandatory minimum provision

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 29, 2011//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Sexual Assault — mandatory minimum provision

A jury found Comas guilty of repeated sexual assault of the same child. Comas seeks resentencing. He argues that the circuit court erred in sentencing him because the court mistakenly believed that a mandatory minimum sentencing provision applied. Comas contends that the mandatory minimum was inapplicable for two distinct reasons. One of these reasons is that the jury’s verdict, viewed in light of the jury instructions, does not support application of the mandatory minimum. We agree and, therefore, reverse and remand with directions. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP2687-CR State v. Comas

Dist IV, Wood County, Potter, J., Lundsten, P.J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Grunder, Steven D., Madison; For Respondent: Remington, Christine A., Madison; Constable, Eliz. R., Wisconsin Rapids

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event