 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Tries2/8/2000
Cornelia G. Clark Acting Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: ROBERT C. CRAWFORD, Judge. Affirmed.
. Nikolas J. Tries appeals from a judgment entered by the trial court convicting him of one count of disorderly conduct. See Wis. Stat. § 947.01. He claims that the trial court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion and that the trial court was biased. We affirm.
. Tries was originally charged with three counts: battery, see Wis. Stat. § 940.19(1); criminal damage to property, see Wis. Stat. § 943.01(1); and disorderly conduct, see Wis. Stat. § 947.01. The battery charge resulted from Tries punching a man he allegedly harassed in a tavern. The criminal-damage-to-property charge was based on Tries smashing out a window of the man's car with a beer bottle. Foundation for the disorderly-conduct charge was Tries's violent resistance of attempts by Milwaukee police officers to take him into custody, during which one of the officers was injured. If he had been convicted on all counts, Tries faced a maximum period of incarceration of eighteen months plus ninety days, in addition to total fines of twenty-one thousand dollars.
. The case was plea bargained, and Tries pled guilty to a disorderly conduct charge (the battery charge reduced to disorderly conduct by the prosecution); the other charges were dismissed. Tries also agreed to plead guilty to a driving-while-intoxicated charge, second offense, issued in another case. When the trial court noted that, in its view, Tries was subject to penalties as a third-time offender, see Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d), because when Tries was what the trial court referred to as a "fugitive" from Wisconsin (a characterization that Tries does not dispute), he was convicted of drunk driving in another state, Tries decided to go to trial on the drunk-driving charge.
. Although the trial court originally indicated that it was going to sentence Tries on both the drunk-driving and the disorderly-conduct cases together, Tries's decision to go to trial in the drunk-driving case led the trial court to conclude that it was better to sentence Tries on the disorderly-conduct case, which was then almost two-years old, without waiting for the result of the drunk-driving trial. After much analysis and colloquy with the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and Tries, the trial court imposed the maximum period of incarceration permitted under the plea-bargained disorderly-conduct charge-ninety days, with work-release privileges.
A. Sentencing.
. Sentencing is vested in the trial court's discretion, and a defendant who challenges a sentence has the burden to show that it was unreasonable; it is presumed that the trial court acted reasonably. See State v. Lechner, 217 Wis. 2d 392, 418, 576 N.W.2d 912, 925 (1998). The primary factors considered in imposing sentence are the gravity of the offense, the character of the offender, and the need for the public's protection. See Elias v. State, 93 Wis. 2d 278, 284, 286 N.W.2d 559, 561 (1980). If the trial court exercises its discretion based on the appropriate factors, its sentence will not be reversed unless it is "so excessive and unusual and so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and prop
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|