Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chambersgreen2 sentences2004The sentence modification rule is part of the larger rule "that for issues on appeal to be considered as a matter of right, postconviction motions must be made except in challenges to the ... `sufficiency of the evidence or issues previously raised.'" State v. Hayes, 167 Wis. 2d 423, 425-26 , 481 N.W.2d 699 (Ct. App. 1992) (citations omitted); see also State v. Chambers , 173 Wis. 2d 237, 261 , 496 N.W.2d 191 (Ct. App. 1992). ¶5. 2004The sentence modification rule is part of the larger rule "that for issues on appeal to be considered as a matter of right, postconviction motions must be made except in challenges to the ... `sufficiency of the evidence or issues previously raised.'" State v. Hayes, 167 Wis. 2d 423, 425-26 , 481 N.W.2d 699 (Ct. App. 1992) (citations omitted); see also State v. Chambers , 173 Wis. 2d 237, 261 , 496 N.W.2d 191 (Ct. App. 1992). ¶5. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Michelsgreen1 sentence2004In making this determination, Judge Resheske said that Trokan had therefore established a "new factor." Based on Judge Resheske's use of the phrase "new factor," Trokan argues that Judge Resheske was obliged to move to the second step of the analysis and conduct a full sentence modification hearing. ¶12 However, we conclude that Trokan's leap to the second prong of the analysis is premature because a new factor consists not only of new information "not known ... at the time of original sentencing" but also "a fact or set of facts highly relevant to the imposition of sentence. " Michels, 150 Wi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Andrew J. Matasek
green
2 sentences2018Thus, Wis. Stat. § 973.015 (1m)(a)1.'s use of "the" before "time of sentencing" means that the statute contemplates only one unique, specified "time of sentencing"; if expunction may be addressed only at one unique, specified "time of sentencing," common sense counsels that it would be when sentence is imposed because not every criminal defendant will seek or be granted a sentence modification hearing. ¶20 Similarly, in Matasek, we considered whether Wis. Stat. § 973.015 (2011-12)10 "allows a circuit court to delay the expunction decision until the offender's successful completion of the sente 2018Thus, Wis. Stat. § 973.015 (1m)(a)1.'s use of "the" before "time of sentencing" means that the statute contemplates only one unique, specified "time of sentencing"; if expunction may be addressed only at one unique, specified "time of sentencing," common sense counsels that it would be when sentence is imposed because not every criminal defendant will seek or be granted a sentence modification hearing. ¶20 Similarly, in Matasek, we considered whether Wis. Stat. § 973.015 (2011-12)10 "allows a circuit court to delay the expunction decision until the offender's successful completion of the sente | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Grindemann
green
2 sentences2024Smith v. State, 85 Wis. 2d 650, 661 , 271 N.W.2d 20 (1978) (concluding that sentencing modification is based on the court’s exercise of discretion and therefore cannot be raised under § 974.06); State v. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106 , ¶19 n.4, 255 Wis. 2d 632 , 648 N.W.2d 507 (concluding that a sentence modification claim does not come within § 974.06). 2024Smith v. State, 85 Wis. 2d 650, 661 , 271 N.W.2d 20 (1978) (concluding that sentencing modification is based on the court’s exercise of discretion and therefore cannot be raised under § 974.06); State v. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106 , ¶19 n.4, 255 Wis. 2d 632 , 648 N.W.2d 507 (concluding that a sentence modification claim does not come within § 974.06). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2024Smith v. State, 85 Wis. 2d 650, 661 , 271 N.W.2d 20 (1978) (concluding that sentencing modification is based on the court’s exercise of discretion and therefore cannot be raised under § 974.06); State v. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106 , ¶19 n.4, 255 Wis. 2d 632 , 648 N.W.2d 507 (concluding that a sentence modification claim does not come within § 974.06). 2024Smith v. State, 85 Wis. 2d 650, 661 , 271 N.W.2d 20 (1978) (concluding that sentencing modification is based on the court’s exercise of discretion and therefore cannot be raised under § 974.06); State v. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106 , ¶19 n.4, 255 Wis. 2d 632 , 648 N.W.2d 507 (concluding that a sentence modification claim does not come within § 974.06). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Hayes
green
2 sentences2004The sentence modification rule is part of the larger rule "that for issues on appeal to be considered as a matter of right, postconviction motions must be made except in challenges to the ... `sufficiency of the evidence or issues previously raised.'" State v. Hayes, 167 Wis. 2d 423, 425-26 , 481 N.W.2d 699 (Ct. App. 1992) (citations omitted); see also State v. Chambers , 173 Wis. 2d 237, 261 , 496 N.W.2d 191 (Ct. App. 1992). ¶5. 2004The sentence modification rule is part of the larger rule "that for issues on appeal to be considered as a matter of right, postconviction motions must be made except in challenges to the ... `sufficiency of the evidence or issues previously raised.'" State v. Hayes, 167 Wis. 2d 423, 425-26 , 481 N.W.2d 699 (Ct. App. 1992) (citations omitted); see also State v. Chambers , 173 Wis. 2d 237, 261 , 496 N.W.2d 191 (Ct. App. 1992). ¶5. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Monje
green
2 sentences1992The sentence modification rule is part of the larger rule "that for issues on appeal to be considered as a matter of right, postconviction motions must be made except in challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence under sec. 974.02(2) [Stats. (1979-80)]." State v. Monje, 109 Wis. 2d 138 , 153a, 325 N.W.2d 695 , 327 N.W.2d 641 , 641 (1982) (on motion for reconsideration). 1992The sentence modification rule is part of the larger rule "that for issues on appeal to be considered as a matter of right, postconviction motions must be made except in challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence under sec. 974.02(2) [Stats. (1979-80)]." State v. Monje, 109 Wis. 2d 138 , 153a, 325 N.W.2d 695 , 327 N.W.2d 641 , 641 (1982) (on motion for reconsideration). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.