Opinion ID: 6112703
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review & applicable law

Text: ¶8 We review a circuit court's sentencing decision for an erroneous exercise of discretion. State v. Dalton, 2018 WI 85, ¶36, 383 Wis. 2d 147, 914 N.W.2d 120. A circuit court erroneously exercises its sentencing discretion when it actually relies on clearly irrelevant or improper factors. Id. Accordingly, a defendant challenging his or her sentence must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the challenged factor is irrelevant or improper; and (2) the circuit court actually relied on that factor. State v. Pico, 2018 WI 66, ¶48, 382 Wis. 2d 273, 914 N.W.2d 95. ¶9 Under the improper-factor prong, sentencing factors are proper when they inform valid sentencing objectives including the protection of the community, punishment of the defendant, rehabilitation of the defendant, and deterrence to others. State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶40, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197; see also Wis. Stat. § 973.017(2). Primary factors informing those objectives are the gravity of the offense, the defendant's 5 No. 2018AP1476-CR character, and the need to protect the public. Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶44. Secondary factors include: (1) Past record of criminal offenses; (2) history of undesirable behavior pattern; (3) the defendant's personality, character and social traits; (4) result of presentence investigation; (5) vicious or aggravated nature of the crime; (6) degree of the defendant's culpability; (7) defendant's demeanor at trial; (8) defendant's age, educational background and employment record; (9) defendant's remorse, repentance and cooperativeness; (10) defendant's need for close rehabilitative control; (11) the rights of the public; and (12) the length of pretrial detention. Id., ¶43, n.11. Finally, a circuit court may properly entertain a general predisposition[], based upon his or her criminal sentencing experience so long as that predisposition is not so specific or rigid that it ignore[s] the particular circumstances of the individual offender. State v. Ogden, 199 Wis. 2d 566, 573, 544 N.W.2d 574 (1996). ¶10 Under the actual-reliance prong, we review the sentencing transcript as a whole and assess any allegedly improper comments within that context. State v. Williams, 2018 WI 59, ¶52, 381 Wis. 2d 661, 912 N.W.2d 373. To prove actual reliance a defendant must identify where in the transcript the circuit court both gave explicit attention to an improper factor and made the improper factor a part of the basis for the sentence. Id. Therefore, a defendant will fall short of proving actual reliance if the transcript lacks clear and convincing evidence that the factor was the sole cause of a harsher sentence. Id., ¶¶45-46, 53. A defendant will also fail to show actual reliance if a 6 No. 2018AP1476-CR reference to a challenged factor bears a reasonable nexus to a relevant, proper factor. Id., ¶53.