State v. Doe, 082719 WICA, 2017AP2163-CR
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John Doe, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||Before Brash, P.J., Brennan and Dugan, JJ.|
|Case Date:||August 27, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Wisconsin|
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
APPEAL from a judgment and order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: JEFFREY A. WAGNER, Judge.
Before Brash, P.J., Brennan and Dugan, JJ.
Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in Wis.Stat. Rule 809.23(3).
¶1 John Doe1 appeals a judgment convicting him of second-degree sexual assault. He also appeals the circuit court's order partially denying his motion for sentence modification. Doe argues that: (1) there are new factors that warrant sentence modification; (2) the circuit court misused its discretion when it reduced his sentence by one year; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We reject these arguments. Accordingly, we affirm.
¶2 Doe was charged with multiple crimes stemming from two gang rapes and armed robberies of separate victims that occurred over a two-week period in May 2013. Doe pled guilty to one count of second-degree sexual assault with use of force, as a party to a crime, pursuant to a plea agreement that dismissed and read-in the other charges. The circuit court sentenced Doe to twenty-five years of imprisonment, with fifteen years of initial incarceration and ten years of extended supervision. Doe moved for postconviction relief, arguing that there were new factors warranting sentence modification. The circuit court denied Doe's motion in part and held a hearing on Doe's remaining claim. After the hearing, the circuit court reduced the initial incarceration portion of Doe's sentence by one year.
¶3 Doe argues that there are several new factors that warrant sentence modification. A new factor is "a fact or set of facts" that is "highly relevant to the imposition of sentence, but not known to the trial judge at the time of original sentencing, either because it was not then in existence or because, even though it was then in existence, it was unknowingly...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP