Case Name: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Geoffrey D. Kasmarek, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 2006-11-09
Citations: 297 Wis. 2d 589
Docket Number: No. 2004AP3285-CR
Parties: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Geoffrey D. Kasmarek, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports Second
Volume: 297
Pages: 589–591

Head Matter:
State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Geoffrey D. Kasmarek, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
Supreme Court
No. 2004AP3285-CR.
Oral argument October 30, 2006.
—Decided November 9, 2006.
2006 WI 123
(Also reported in 723 N.W.2d 428.)
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.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
¶ 1. Geoffrey D. Kasmarek (Kas-marek) 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:
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 máximums....
¶ 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.