COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 5, 2010 A.
John Voelker Acting 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 |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT I |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jose G. Santiago, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Kessler and Brennan, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Jose G. Santiago, pro se, appeals an order denying his
motion to modify his sentence. He
challenges the DNA surcharge imposed by the circuit court, arguing that the
court failed to adequately explain why it was
imposed. See State v. Cherry,
2008 WI App 80, ¶10, 312 Wis. 2d 203, 752 N.W.2d 393 (when the circuit
court exercises discretionary power to impose a DNA surcharge, it must explain
its reasons for doing so). We affirm.
¶2
¶3 Our recent decision in Cherry does not qualify as a new
factor. The supreme court has previously
held that a post-sentencing change in the law is not a new factor for purposes
of sentence modification because it is not highly relevant to the imposition of
the original sentence. See State
v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, ¶30, 279
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.