 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Badalich11/2/1999
n its well-written, well-reasoned brief, Badalich's claim of trial-court error is without merit.
2. Sentencing.
. Badalich complains that the trial court sentenced him to the maximum period of incarceration, albeit with work-release privileges. He argues that the trial court gave too much weight to "the seriousness of the accident and the defendant's breath alcohol concentration."
. 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 proper under the circumstances." Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis.2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457, 461 (1975). We have read the sentencing transcript. The trial court reasonably exercised its discretion. Moreover, contrary to the implication in Badalich's argument, " he weight to be given each factor is within the discretion of the trial court." State v. Wickstrom, 118 Wis.2d 339, 355, 348 N.W.2d 183, 192 (Ct. App. 1984).
By the Court. -- Judgment and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|