COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED April 20, 2010 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 I |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bret Cory Corrao, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Bret Cory Corrao appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered upon his guilty plea, for one count of second-degree sexual assault of a child. See Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2). He also appeals from the order denying his motion for sentence modification. The only issue he presents on appeal is whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Corrao had sexual intercourse with a fourteen-year-old girl and impregnated her. The State charged him with one count of second-degree sexual assault of a child. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Corrao pled guilty as charged, and the State recommended a prison sentence without specifying a recommended length for the term of imprisonment.
¶3 At sentencing, Corrao asked the circuit court to place him on probation. He explained that he wanted to participate in the lives of his children, including the infant born to the victim in this case. The circuit court rejected Corrao’s request for probation and imposed a ten-year term of imprisonment, bifurcated as five years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision. Corrao moved for sentence modification. The circuit court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
¶4 Corrao asserts that the circuit court “failed to explain the rationale behind [the] sentencing decision with sufficient specificity.” We disagree.
¶5 Our standard of review is well settled. Sentencing lies within the circuit court’s
discretion, and appellate review is limited to considering whether discretion
was erroneously exercised. State
v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶17, 270
¶6 The circuit court must consider the primary sentencing
factors of “the gravity of the offense, the character of the defendant, and the
need to protect the public.” State
v. Ziegler, 2006 WI App 49, ¶23, 289
(1) [p]ast record of criminal offenses; (2) history of
undesirable behavior pattern; (3) the defendant’s personality, character and
social traits; (4) result of presentence investigation; (5) vicious or
aggravated nature of the crime; (6) degree of the defendant’s culpability;
(7) defendant’s demeanor at trial; (8) defendant’s age, educational background
and employment record;
(9) defendant’s remorse, repentance and cooperativeness; (10) defendant’s need
for close rehabilitative control;
(11) the rights of the public; and (12) the length of pretrial detention.
Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶43
& n.11, 270
¶7 The circuit court must “specify the objectives of the
sentence on the [R]ecord. These
objectives include, but are not limited to, the protection of the community,
punishment of the defendant, rehabilitation of the defendant, and deterrence to
others.” Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶40,
270
¶8 Here, the circuit court began its sentencing remarks by
discussing the seriousness of Corrao’s
sexual assault of a fourteen-year-old girl.
The circuit court determined that the offense was aggravated because it
resulted in a pregnancy and the birth of a child. In considering Corrao’s character, the
circuit court discussed Corrao’s criminal history. See
State
v. Fisher, 2005 WI App 175, ¶26, 285
¶9 The circuit court acknowledged several mitigating factors, noting that Corrao had accepted responsibility for his crime and that he had obtained a high school equivalency degree. The circuit court determined, however, that Corrao’s lack of stable employment, his history of substance abuse, and his limited education increased the risk that he would commit additional offenses.
¶10 The circuit court identified rehabilitation and protection of
the community as the goals of the sentence.
The circuit court found that Corrao had extensive treatment needs that
could not be adequately addressed outside of a prison setting. Further, the circuit court found that
confinement in prison was required to protect the public from Corrao’s criminal
conduct. Accordingly, the circuit court
rejected Corrao’s request for a term of probation. See Gallion,
2004 WI 42, ¶44, 270
¶11 Corrao does not dispute that the circuit court referred to numerous relevant factors in its sentencing remarks. He complains, however, that the circuit court did not identify “the factors on which it most relie[d] in determining the appropriate length of sentence.” He also complains that the circuit court did not link the length of the sentence imposed to the “relevant facts.” Corrao misunderstands the circuit court’s obligations at sentencing.
¶12 The circuit court is not required to assign comparative weight
to any sentencing factor. Fisher,
2005 WI App 175, ¶¶21–22, 285
¶13 Here, the circuit court discussed the sentencing factors
relevant to Corrao and the crime that he committed. The circuit court chose appropriate
sentencing goals in light of those factors.
Its sentencing remarks fully explain the range of the sentence imposed
in light of the proper considerations. See id., 2006 WI App 71, ¶21, 291
¶14 Finally, we reject Corrao’s suggestion that the circuit court
imposed a sentence that is excessive or unduly harsh.[1] “A sentence is unduly harsh when it 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.’” State v. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28,
¶29, 316
¶15 “A sexual assault of a child is a serious offense.” State v. Fuerst, 181
By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
[1] Corrao’s appellate brief contains an assertion in both the statement of the appellate issue and the summary of the argument that the circuit court imposed “an excessive sentence.” Although Corrao does not develop the contention, we choose to address it for the sake of completeness.