COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 23, 2011 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. Robert Allen Sheehan, 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. Robert Allen Sheehan appeals a judgment convicting him of one count of burglary and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Sheehan contends that he is entitled to resentencing because the circuit court based his sentence on its erroneous belief that he had committed other uncharged burglaries. We affirm.
¶2 “[A] criminal defendant has a due process right to be sentenced
only upon materially accurate information.”
State v. Lechner, 217
¶3 Sheehan takes issue with the following comments made by the circuit court as it discussed Sheehan’s prior criminal history during sentencing:
That brings me to you, you are a burglar. Look at your record, burglary 1989, entry into a locked building 1990; one of the elements of burglary is entry into a building without consent. The computer records are too old, I can’t [g]o back and see whether or not that was plea bargained down. 94 a burglary, 95 a battery, 97 operating motor vehicle without consent, 97 receiving stolen property, 2000 a burglary.
There was at least one burglary here that you took to jury and you beat it. God knows how many businesses you broke into between 1989 and June 2009 in the last 20 years that you were never caught for. But I don’t believe for a minute that this is the only time that you violated the law by burglarizing a business. I believe there were probably others.
Sheehan argues that the circuit court’s statement that he probably committed other burglaries is not supported by anything in the record, and contends that he is entitled to resentencing because the circuit court relied on this inaccurate information about him in framing its sentence.
¶4 We reject Sheehan’s argument.
When the circuit court’s comments are considered in context, it is clear
that the circuit court was making rhetorical observations based on Sheehan’s prior
criminal conduct. The circuit court
pointed out that Sheehan had multiple convictions for crimes similar to the crime
for which he was being sentenced, including three prior burglary convictions, a
conviction for entering a locked building and a conviction for receiving stolen
property. These convictions indicated a
pattern of undesirable behavior that reflected negatively on Sheehan’s
character, in particular his penchant for taking other people’s things. It is well-established that a sentencing
court may consider a pattern of behavior that speaks to the defendant’s
character. See Elias v. State, 93
By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5. (2009-10).