Case Title: State v. Geoffrey D. Kasmarek

Citation: 2006 WI 123

Docket Number: 2004AP003285-CR

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 123 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP3285-CR 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
     v. 
Geoffrey D. Kasmarek, 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
(no cite) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 9, 2006 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 30, 2006   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Waukesha   
 
JUDGE: 
Mark S. Gempeler & Donald J. Hassin, Jr. 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by 
Jeffrey W. Jensen and Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Jensen, 
Milwaukee, and oral argument by Jeffrey W. Jensen. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Eileen 
W. Pray, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was 
Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. 
 
 
2006 WI 123
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP3285-CR  
(L.C. No. 
2002CF975) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Geoffrey D. Kasmarek, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 9, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed as 
improvidently granted.     
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM. 
 
 
Geoffrey 
D. 
Kasmarek 
(Kasmarek) 
petitioned this court for review of a court of appeals decision 
which summarily affirmed a judgment of conviction and order 
denying postconviction relief, entered in the Waukesha County 
Circuit Court, the Honorable Mark S. Gempeler and the Honorable 
Donald J. Hassin, Jr., respectively, presiding.      
¶2 
Kasmarek petitioned this court for review stating his 
specific grounds as follows: 
No. 
2004AP3285-CR   
 
2 
 
the issue presented by this petition is one which 
offers the Supreme Court the opportunity to clarify 
the law concerning when a sentence is unduly harsh.  
In the past the courts have consistently held that the 
statutory maximum is the primary protection against 
unduly harsh sentences; however, these cases rarely 
involve 
numerous 
counts 
of 
crimes 
with 
lengthy 
maximums. . . . 
¶3 
We accepted review to determine the issue presented.   
¶4 
After examining the record, along with the briefs of 
the parties, and after hearing oral argument, we have determined 
that the request to clarify the unduly harsh standard as applied 
to multiple count sentences was, to a large extent, not 
presented.  Instead the argument focused, almost entirely, on 
whether the circuit court’s explanation for the sentence imposed 
was sufficient. 
¶5 
Under these circumstances, we conclude that this case 
does not adequately present the issue for which we granted 
review; therefore, we dismiss the petition for review. 
By the Court.—The review of the decision of the court of 
appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted. 
 
 
No. 
2004AP3285-CR   
 
 
 
1