COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED June 15, 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. Raymon C. Mayfield, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Kessler and Brennan, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Raymon C. Mayfield appeals a judgment convicting him of felony murder/substantial battery. He also appeals an order denying his postconviction motion. Mayfield challenges his sentence, arguing that the court should have given more weight to the fact that the victim, Anthony Hess, taunted him with racial slurs. He also argues that the sentence was disproportionate to the crime. We affirm.
¶2 Mayfield and Hess were drinking together late into the evening after helping take down a carnival for which they both worked. Mayfield, who is African American, beat Hess, who is Caucasian, after Hess apparently taunted him repeatedly, calling him a “nigger” and other derogatory names. Hess died from his injuries. Mayfield pled guilty to felony murder/substantial battery and was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment, with ten years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision.
¶3 Mayfield first argues that his sentence should be modified
because the sentencing court did not adequately take into consideration the
fact that Hess provoked him by making derogatory racial slurs. Mayfield contends that Hess’s actions were
tantamount to a hate crime. “[T]he
weight that is attached to a relevant factor in sentencing is … within the wide
discretion of the sentencing court.” State
v. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181, ¶16, 276
¶4 Mayfield next argues that the sentence was disproportionate
to the crime. A sentence is excessive or
unduly harsh when it is “‘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. Grindemann, 2002 WI App
106, ¶31, 255
By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5. (2007-08).