Plea & Sentencing

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Theoris Raphel Stewart

Case No.: 2017AP1587-CR; 2017AP1588-CR

Officials: Kessler, P.J., Brennan and Brash, JJ.

Focus: Plea & Sentencing

Theoris Raphel Stewart appeals two judgments of conviction and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He seeks to withdraw his guilty plea to two counts of identity theft on the grounds of manifest injustice because he argues that no factual basis exists for his plea. Stewart had, in a previous case not otherwise relevant to this appeal, pled guilty to two felony counts of failure to pay court-ordered child support and presented forged documents in an attempt to influence his sentence.

The forgeries were discovered after Stewart was sentenced in the child support case, and the State then filed new charges, including the two identity theft charges relevant to this appeal. Stewart did not dispute that he had forged the documents—which appeared to be official documents from two universities and from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Nor did he dispute that he had lied to the writer of the presentence investigation report (PSI) about his education and the nature of his military discharge for the purpose of “try[ing] to find a shortcut” to a better outcome in the previous case.

Rather, Stewart argues that his admitted unauthorized use of the forged documents did not constitute a violation of the identity theft statute under which he was charged. See WIS. STAT. § 943.203(2) (2015-16). He argues that not all of the required elements of the crime are satisfied for the following reasons: (1) he did not represent that he was “acting with the authorization or consent of the entity,” and (2) the use of the identifying information of the two entities was not for the purpose of “obtain[ing] … anything … of value or benefit.” See § 943.203(2)(a). Specifically, he argues that there is no evidence that he expressly represented that he had the entities’ “authorization or consent,” and that “even assuming [the sentencing court] gave some consideration to the misrepresentations at issue, the sentencing court’s determination is not ‘anything of value or benefit’ as intended by the legislature.” We reject Stewart’s arguments and affirm.

Recommended for Publication

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.