Brown v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Brown v. State

190 N.W.2d 497, 52 Wis. 2d 496, 1971 Wisc. LEXIS 1012

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 8, 1971

DocketState 97

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 190 N.W.2d 497 (Brown v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. State, 190 N.W.2d 497, 52 Wis. 2d 496, 1971 Wisc. LEXIS 1012 (Wis. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Hanley, J.

The sole issue presented for review is whether the imposition of the maximum sentence of *500 ten years was an abuse of discretion under the facts of this case.

This case is similar to McCleary v. State (1971), 49 Wis. 2d 263, 182 N. W. 2d 512. The crime in both cases was forgery, which the defendant admitted committing. After examining the presentence reports, Circuit Judge Hugh R. O’Connell imposed the maximum prison sentence in both cases. The defendant in the instant case argues that the ten-year sentence is excessive, just as McCleary did. However, McCleary’s forgery was his first offense — therein lies the difference.

This court stated in McCleary v. State, supra, at page 290:

“. . . We wish to make it absolutely clear, however, that a trial judge, in an aggravated case and in the exercise of proper discretion, could impose a maximum ten-year sentence in a forgery case and that such discretion would be sustained by this court.”

We think that this case is sufficiently “aggravated” to permit the trial court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, to impose the maximum prison sentence. The defendant committed forgery, not once, but six times within six months. Although the trial judge does not sentence for the read-in charges, they can be considered for sentencing purposes. Embry v. State (1970), 46 Wis. 2d 151, 158, 174 N. W. 2d 521. In addition, defendant’s long record shows a- prior forgery and many less serious charges.

. . These complaints are evidence of a pattern of behavior which, in turn, is an index of the defendant’s character, a critical factor in the sentencing. . . .” Waddell v. State (1964), 24 Wis. 2d 364, 368, 129 N. W. 2d 201.

The reasons the trial judge selected the particular sentence clearly appear in the record, as required by McCleary v. State, supra, at page 281. It is evident that *501 the judge was initially reluctant to grant probation and did so only after imposing a lengthy sentence “to be held over [the defendant’s] head” in case of violation of the conditions of probation. These conditions were immediately violated and in a most outrageous manner.

We conclude that under the facts of this case the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing the maximum prison sentence.

By the Court. — Judgment and order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hanley, J.

The sole issue presented for review is whether the imposition of the maximum sentence of *500 ten years was an abuse of discretion under the facts of this case.

This case is similar to McCleary v. State (1971), 49 Wis. 2d 263, 182 N. W. 2d 512. The crime in both cases was forgery, which the defendant admitted committing. After examining the presentence reports, Circuit Judge Hugh R. O’Connell imposed the maximum prison sentence in both cases. The defendant in the instant case argues that the ten-year sentence is excessive, just as McCleary did. However, McCleary’s forgery was his first offense — therein lies the difference.

This court stated in McCleary v. State, supra, at page 290:

“. . . We wish to make it absolutely clear, however, that a trial judge, in an aggravated case and in the exercise of proper discretion, could impose a maximum ten-year sentence in a forgery case and that such discretion would be sustained by this court.”

We think that this case is sufficiently “aggravated” to permit the trial court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, to impose the maximum prison sentence. The defendant committed forgery, not once, but six times within six months. Although the trial judge does not sentence for the read-in charges, they can be considered for sentencing purposes. Embry v. State (1970), 46 Wis. 2d 151, 158, 174 N. W. 2d 521. In addition, defendant’s long record shows a- prior forgery and many less serious charges.

. . These complaints are evidence of a pattern of behavior which, in turn, is an index of the defendant’s character, a critical factor in the sentencing. . . .” Waddell v. State (1964), 24 Wis. 2d 364, 368, 129 N. W. 2d 201.

The reasons the trial judge selected the particular sentence clearly appear in the record, as required by McCleary v. State, supra, at page 281. It is evident that *501 the judge was initially reluctant to grant probation and did so only after imposing a lengthy sentence “to be held over [the defendant’s] head” in case of violation of the conditions of probation. These conditions were immediately violated and in a most outrageous manner.

We conclude that under the facts of this case the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing the maximum prison sentence.

By the Court. — Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 N.W.2d 497, 52 Wis. 2d 496, 1971 Wisc. LEXIS 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-wis-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack