Sentencing — accurate information

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Sentencing — accurate information

Andrew A. Uitz appeals judgments convicting him of one count of burglary and one count of felony bail jumping. He also appeals an order denying his motion for sentence modification. He argues that: (1) the circuit court misused its discretion because it considered a fact that was an element of the crime of burglary as an aggravating factor in sentencing; (2) the circuit court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing because it incorrectly believed that Tony Menzer was a victim in this burglary, when he was actually an alleged victim from a non-charged offense; (3) the circuit court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing because it incorrectly believed that the victim of this burglary, Erik Stenglein, was entitled to restitution of $6000 for musical equipment, when in fact Stenglein’s property was returned; (4) the circuit court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing because it treated the alleged, uncharged burglary against Menzer as if it were a read-in; and (5) the circuit court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion because it did not believe that Uitz was in the process of returning stolen property when he was apprehended despite corroboration in the police report. We affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2011AP2381-CR, 2011AP2382-CR State v. Uitz

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

Attorneys: For Appellant: Tauscheck, George, Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Wellman, Sally L., Madison