Criminal Procedure — double jeopardy

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — double jeopardy

A defendant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy was not violated when the circuit court increased her sentence one day after initially imposing it.

“Here, Judge Van Grunsven noticed he had misunderstood Robinson’s prior criminal record during the original sentencing hearing on the same day it occurred and scheduled a new sentencing hearing for the following day. This was not a case where the circuit court judge decided, after further deliberating on the initial sentence imposed, that a different sentence length was more appropriate. Here, as Judge Van Grunsven explained on the record, he misunderstood Robinson’s lengthy criminal record, failed to sentence Robinson in a way that matched his intention, and acted to remedy the error as expeditiously as possible. We hold that the record supports this explanation, considering the complexity of the defendant’s prior criminal history as recited on the record, Judge Van Grunsven’s lengthy remarks regarding the ‘despicable’ nature of Robinson’s conduct and the need to protect the public, and the promptness with which the sentence was rectified.”

Affirmed.

2011AP2833-CR State v. Robinson

Gableman, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Haskell, Dustin C., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Larson, Sara Lynn, Madison