three primary sentencing factors in Wisconsin

2004Dixon contends that "[ n]othing could be further from the truth[,]" and "[t]he transcript will speak for itself as to [his] position on any objection to the death of [the victim] being considered by the [trial c]ourt." We can find nothing in the transcripts from the sentencing hearing indicating that Dixon made any objection to the comments. [3] Furthermore, in State v. Bobbitt , 178 Wis. 2d 11, 18-19 , 503 N.W.2d 11 (Ct. App. 1993), this court concluded that the acts of violence surrounding the crime for which the defendant was convicted were relevant to the three primary sentencing factors.

2004Dixon contends that "[ n]othing could be further from the truth[,]" and "[t]he transcript will speak for itself as to [his] position on any objection to the death of [the victim] being considered by the [trial c]ourt." We can find nothing in the transcripts from the sentencing hearing indicating that Dixon made any objection to the comments. [3] Furthermore, in State v. Bobbitt , 178 Wis. 2d 11, 18-19 , 503 N.W.2d 11 (Ct. App. 1993), this court concluded that the acts of violence surrounding the crime for which the defendant was convicted were relevant to the three primary sentencing factors.

2019The court must consider the three primary sentencing factors: "(1) the gravity and nature of the offense, including the effect on the victim, (2) the character and rehabilitative needs of the offender, and (3) the need to protect the public." Id. , ¶7 (citation omitted).

2004As noted supra, the three primary sentencing factors that the court must consider are " '(1) the gravity and nature of the offense, including the effect on the victim, (2) the character and rehabilitative needs of the offender, and (3) the need to protect the public.'" State v. Hall, 2002 WI App 108, ¶ 7 , 255 Wis. 2d 662 , 648 N.W.2d 41 (quoting State v. Spears, 227 Wis. 2d 495, 507 , 596 N.W.2d 375 (1999)) (emphasis added).

2019"Sentences are to be individualized to meet the facts of the particular case and the characteristics of the individual defendant." State v. Holloway , 202 Wis. 2d 694 , 699-700, 551 N.W.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1996). ¶34 Here, the trial court considered circumstances relevant to the primary sentencing factors.

2019"Sentences are to be individualized to meet the facts of the particular case and the characteristics of the individual defendant." State v. Holloway , 202 Wis. 2d 694 , 699-700, 551 N.W.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1996). ¶34 Here, the trial court considered circumstances relevant to the primary sentencing factors.

2016Harris (Landray M.), 326 Wis. 2d 685, ¶45 . ¶127 As the majority opinion aptly explains, the circuit court here appropriately considered numerous sentencing factors when imposing sentence and merely mentioned the defendant's COMPAS risk assessment in passing.4 The circuit court detailed the three primary sentencing factors and explained how the facts of the case warranted the sentence imposed.5 Therefore, I agree with the majority opinion that circuit courts may consider a COMPAS risk assessment along with a multitude of other relevant factors at sentencing, as was done in this case.6 ¶128 How

2005Id. ¶11 In addition to the three primary sentencing factors, other relevant factors that the circuit court may consider include: (1) the defendant's past record of criminal offenses; (2) any history of undesirable behavior patterns; (3) the defendant's personality, character, and social traits; (4) the presentence investigation; (5) the nature of the crime; (6) the degree of the defendant's culpability; (7) the defendant's demeanor at trial; (8) the defendant's age, educational background, and employment record; (9) the defendant's remorse and cooperativeness; (10) the defendant's need for clo

2005Harris v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 513, 519-20 , 250 N.W.2d 7 (1977). ¶12 The circuit court need discuss only the relevant factors in each case.

2005Harris v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 513, 519-20 , 250 N.W.2d 7 (1977). ¶12 The circuit court need discuss only the relevant factors in each case.

2004As noted supra, the three primary sentencing factors that the court must consider are " '(1) the gravity and nature of the offense, including the effect on the victim, (2) the character and rehabilitative needs of the offender, and (3) the need to protect the public.'" State v. Hall, 2002 WI App 108, ¶ 7 , 255 Wis. 2d 662 , 648 N.W.2d 41 (quoting State v. Spears, 227 Wis. 2d 495, 507 , 596 N.W.2d 375 (1999)) (emphasis added).

2004As noted supra, the three primary sentencing factors that the court must consider are " '(1) the gravity and nature of the offense, including the effect on the victim, (2) the character and rehabilitative needs of the offender, and (3) the need to protect the public.'" State v. Hall, 2002 WI App 108, ¶ 7 , 255 Wis. 2d 662 , 648 N.W.2d 41 (quoting State v. Spears, 227 Wis. 2d 495, 507 , 596 N.W.2d 375 (1999)) (emphasis added).

2004Further, a court may consider the " 'vicious or aggravated nature of the crime.'" Spears, 227 Wis. 2d at 507 (quoting State v. Harris, 119 Wis. 2d 612, 623 , 350 N.W.2d 633 (1984)).

2004Further, a court may consider the " 'vicious or aggravated nature of the crime.'" Spears, 227 Wis. 2d at 507 (quoting State v. Harris, 119 Wis. 2d 612, 623 , 350 N.W.2d 633 (1984)).

2004Here, all of the prosecutor's comments were related to the three primary sentencing factors: " 'the nature of the crime, the character of the defendant, and the rights of the public.'" Ferguson, 166 Wis. 2d at 325 (quoting State v. McQuay, 154 Wis. 2d 116, 126 , 452 N.W.2d 377 (1990)).

2004Here, all of the prosecutor's comments were related to the three primary sentencing factors: " 'the nature of the crime, the character of the defendant, and the rights of the public.'" Ferguson, 166 Wis. 2d at 325 (quoting State v. McQuay, 154 Wis. 2d 116, 126 , 452 N.W.2d 377 (1990)).

2004Here, all of the prosecutor's comments were related to the three primary sentencing factors: " 'the nature of the crime, the character of the defendant, and the rights of the public.'" Ferguson, 166 Wis. 2d at 325 (quoting State v. McQuay, 154 Wis. 2d 116, 126 , 452 N.W.2d 377 (1990)).

2002Id.

1993State v. Borrell, 167 Wis. 2d 749, 773-74 , 482 N.W.2d 883 (1992). *683 The defendant asks this court to adopt a new rule of law requiring a sentencing court to specifically address on the record each of the factors listed above in addition to the three primary sentencing factors.

1993State v. Borrell, 167 Wis. 2d 749, 773-74 , 482 N.W.2d 883 (1992). *683 The defendant asks this court to adopt a new rule of law requiring a sentencing court to specifically address on the record each of the factors listed above in addition to the three primary sentencing factors.

1989Ocanas, 70 Wis. 2d at 185 , 233 N.W.2d at 461 . [18] In the present case, we conclude that the trial court adequately considered the three primary sentencing factors before imposing the sentences.

1989Ocanas, 70 Wis. 2d at 185 , 233 N.W.2d at 461 . [18] In the present case, we conclude that the trial court adequately considered the three primary sentencing factors before imposing the sentences.