 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Meloy7/1/2004
Terrance Meloy appeals from a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. The issues relate to sentencing and ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
. Meloy pled no contest to one count of operating while intoxicated, fifth offense. The court sentenced him to two years' confinement and two years' extended supervision. Meloy filed a post-conviction motion raising several issues, and, after an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion.
. Meloy first argues that the circuit judge was biased against him because of the judge's prior experience with Meloy in other cases. We review questions of bias on a subjective and objective basis. See State v. Santana, 220 Wis. 2d 674, 684-85, 584 N.W.2d 151 (Ct. App. 1998). Specifically, Meloy argues that the judge's experience in Meloy's divorce case must have left the judge with a bias against Meloy. However, Meloy can point to nothing in the present record that shows the judge recalled Meloy from earlier proceedings or held any bias. In response to the post-conviction motion, the judge stated that during sentencing he had not had any recollection of Meloy. Thus, there is no merit to this argument.
. Meloy also argues that the court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion by excessively emphasizing the severity of the offense, failing to recognize the "minimal nature" of his prior offenses, and not giving more weight to Meloy's six years since the last offense. Standards for sentencing are well established. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 678 N.W.2d 197. Under those standards, the court has discretion to determine the weight of various factors. State v. Thompson, 172 Wis. 2d 257, 264, 493 N.W.2d 729 (Ct. App. 1992).
. As to the severity of offense, Meloy argues that the court should have spent more time considering the specific facts of his case, rather than the fact that it was a fifth offense. However, he does not identify any specific facts that he believes are in his favor. The court did note that fifth offense is a felony, "represents a significant societal ill," and is dangerous to the public, but this was not the only factor it considered, and it did not do so excessively. As to the "minimal nature" of his prior offenses, Meloy may be suggesting that his earlier drunk driving offenses were "minimal" because they did not result in injuries, or his blood alcohol content was relatively low. However, he does not explain the argument further, and even if this is what he meant, lack of injury, or an only moderately illegal blood level, does not mean that the seriousness of the offense is "minimal." Finally, Meloy argues that the court did not place sufficient weight on his lack of drunk driving offenses during the preceding six years. However, the court did note this fact, and explained that it did not find it significant because the amount of time that passes between repetitions of the offense is less important than the fact that the offense is being repeated. This is a reasonable conclusion.
. Meloy argues that his sentence was excessive because it exceeded guidelines established in judicial districts around the State. However, the guidelines are discretionary and need not be followed by the sentencing court. State v. Jorgensen, 2003 WI 105, n.6, 264 Wis. 2d 157, 667 N.W.2d 318. The supreme court has rejected the idea that defendants convicted of similar crimes must receive equal or similar sentences. See State v. Lechner, 217 Wis. 2d 392, 427, 576 N.W.2d 912 (1998).
. Meloy argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in several ways. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must show that counsel's performance was d
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|