COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 23, 2008 David
R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT III |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Juan Leon Nava,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for
Before
¶1 PER CURIAM. Juan Nava appeals a judgment sentencing him to life in prison with no eligibility for extended supervision plus thirty-two and one-half years’ initial confinement and twenty years’ extended supervision for first-degree intentional homicide, arson and three counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. He also appeals an order denying his motion to reduce the sentences. He argues: (1) the trial court failed to identify the sentencing objectives and how the sentences imposed further those objectives; (2) the court failed to give reasons for imposing consecutive sentences; and (3) the court’s remarks at sentencing evince a preconceived sentencing policy. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment and order.
¶2 The evidence at trial established that Nava stabbed his
girlfriend twenty-nine times and then set the house on fire, endangering her
three young children. Nava told the
author of the presentence investigation report that he stabbed his girlfriend
in self-defense, and he denied setting the fires. Nava’s counsel read a statement from Nava
stating he was “sorry that this has happened” and that he did not understand
how or why it happened. Counsel noted
Nava’s lack of a criminal record and asked the court to consider making Nava
eligible for extended supervision after twenty-five years, noting Nava would be
in his mid-fifties or sixties when he was released and he could “finish his
years in
I don’t believe, and as a result of this sentence I don’t think it will ever happen, I don’t believe that it would ever be appropriate for this defendant, or any defendant who committed a crime such as these, to at some point in time walk out of the Wisconsin prison system and be deported to Mexico and live in Mexico as if nothing happened. That’s an option which I would not and have not given any consideration to.
The court imposed a sentence of life in prison without eligibility for extended supervision for the murder, a consecutive term of twenty-five years’ initial confinement and fifteen years’ extended supervision for the arson, and three terms of seven and one-half years’ initial confinement and five years’ extended supervision, concurrent with each other but consecutive to the homicide and arson sentences, for the three counts of reckless endangerment.
¶3 Although the court did not explicitly identify its sentencing objectives, its comments demonstrate its intent to punish Nava severely for these deplorable crimes and to protect the public from Nava’s inability to control his anger. The sentences imposed achieve those goals. The court appropriately considered the seriousness of the offenses, Nava’s character, including his implausible claim of self-defense and denial that he started the fires, along with his tepid apology, and his willingness to endanger small children in order to cover up his brutal crime. Given the nature of the offenses, a more lengthy elucidation of the court’s sentencing rationale is not required.
¶4 Citing State v. Hall, 2002 WI App 108, ¶14,
255 Wis. 2d 662, 648 N.W.2d 41,
Nava argues that concurrent sentences are the presumptive norm and the
sentencing court must expressly explain why it elects to impose consecutive
sentences. That language is based on the
ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Sentencing, § 18-6.5(c)(ii) at
230. Wisconsin courts have not adopted
the
¶5 Finally, Nava argues that the trial court’s comments evince a
sentencing methodology that is “closed to individual mitigating factors.”
By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5 (2005-06).