Opinion ID: 2685460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unduly Harsh Sentence

Text: ¶70 Within certain constraints, Wisconsin circuit courts have inherent authority to modify criminal sentences. State v. 25 Nos. 2011AP1653-CR & 2012AP520-CR Harbor, 2011 WI 28, ¶35, 333 Wis. 2d 53, 797 N.W.2d 828 (citing State v. Hegwood, 113 Wis. 2d 544, 546, 335 N.W.2d 399 (1983)). A circuit court may not, however, modify a sentence merely on reflection and second thoughts alone. Harbor, 333 Wis. 2d 53, ¶35 (citing State v. Wuensch, 69 Wis. 2d 467, 474, 480, 230 N.W.2d 665 (1975)). Ordinarily a defendant seeking a sentence modification must show the existence of a new factor unknown to the court at the time of sentencing. See, e.g., State v. Ninham, 2011 WI 33, ¶88, 333 Wis. 2d 335, 797 N.W.2d 451. ¶71 In the absence of a new factor, a circuit court has authority to modify a sentence only under certain narrow circumstances. Among those circumstances is if the court determines that the sentence is unduly harsh or unconscionable. Harbor, 333 Wis. 2d 53, ¶35 n.8 (citing State v. Crochiere, 2004 WI 78, ¶12, 273 Wis. 2d 57, 681 N.W.2d 524; Wuensch, 69 Wis. 2d 467; State v. Ralph, 156 Wis. 2d 433, 438, 456 N.W.2d 657 (Ct. App. 1990)).14 ¶72 A sentence is unduly harsh or unconscionable only where the sentence is so excessive and unusual and so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper under the circumstances. 14 The circuit court may also modify a sentence without a new factor if it determines that the sentence originally imposed was illegal or void, State v. Crochiere, 2004 WI 78, ¶12, 273 Wis. 2d 57, 681 N.W.2d 524, or if it relied on inaccurate information when it imposed the original sentence. State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, ¶26, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1. 26 Nos. 2011AP1653-CR & 2012AP520-CR Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975) (citations omitted). ¶73 Cummings argues that his sentence of 14 years of initial confinement to be followed by 10 years of extended supervision was unduly harsh. Cummings asserts that near maximum sentences are deserving of greater scrutiny than sentences well within the normal statutory limits. Cummings claims that [s]uch sentences may be due to the erroneous exercise of discretion. We agree with the court of appeals that Cummings' sentence was not unduly harsh. ¶74 Cummings is correct that [a] sentence well within the statutory limits is unlikely to be so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper under the circumstances. State v. Daniels, 117 Wis. 2d 9, 22, 343 N.W.2d 411 (Ct. App. 1983) (citing Ocanas, 70 Wis. 2d at 185). Near maximum sentences are not, however, automatically suspect. ¶75 'What constitutes adequate punishment is ordinarily left to the discretion of the trial judge. If the sentence is within the statutory limit, appellate courts will not interfere unless clearly cruel and unusual.' Ninham, 333 Wis. 2d 335, ¶85 (citation omitted). Further, we will not disturb the exercise of the circuit court's sentencing discretion so long as it appears from the record that the court applied the proper legal standards to the facts before it, and through a process of 27 Nos. 2011AP1653-CR & 2012AP520-CR reasoning, reached a result which a reasonable judge could reach. Grindemann, 255 Wis. 2d 632, ¶30 (citation omitted). ¶76 In the case at issue, the circuit court stated the proper legal standards to be considered at sentencing. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. The circuit court stated the reasons for the severe sentence on the record, stating: [T]his court rarely gives a sentence that is maximum or something close to the maximum. But in this case, it felt that is was required, it was necessary, or it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the offense, and there was a real need to protect the public. ¶77 Finally, while it is true that not every judge would impose a maximum or near maximum sentence for the offenses Cummings committed, it is hard to say that no reasonable judge would do so. As a result, we conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and we affirm the court of appeals.