District IV
November 21, 2014
To:
Hon. Dale T. Pasell
Circuit Court Judge
LaCrosse County Courthouse
333 Vine Street
La Crosse, WI 54601
Pamela Radtke
Clerk of Circuit Court
La Crosse County Courthouse
333 Vine Street, Room 1200
La Crosse, WI 54601
Tim Gruenke
District Attorney
333 Vine St. Rm. 1100
La Crosse, WI 54601
Robert Probst
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Todd K. Weyher 545569
New Lisbon Corr. Inst.
P.O. Box 4000
New Lisbon, WI 53950-4000
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Wisconsin v. Todd K. Weyher (L.C. # 2003CF111) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Blanchard, P.J., Lundsten and Kloppenburg, JJ.
Todd Weyher appeals an order denying his motion for sentence modification. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21 (2011-12).[1] We affirm.
Weyher first argues that the court erred by concluding that his success in mental health treatment while serving his sentence in Michigan was not a new factor. The State correctly notes that progress, rehabilitation, and response to treatment have not historically been considered new factors. See State v. Crochiere, 2004 WI 78, ¶15, 273 Wis. 2d 57, 681 N.W.2d 524, abrogated on other grounds by State v. Harbor, 2011 WI 28, 333 Wis. 2d 53, 797 N.W.2d 828. Weyher does not persuade us that his case is sufficiently different to deviate from this rule.
Weyher next argues that the court should have given him “credit” for the time he spent in treatment in Michigan, because the Wisconsin corrections system is apparently considering that treatment in some manner. If Weyher is making that argument based on a statute, such as Wis. Stat. § 973.155, he does not explain how time in treatment qualifies for credit, and we do not see how it would. Weyher asserts that fundamental fairness should lead to that credit. However, if based only on the concept of fairness, this argument appears to be similar to the new factor argument, and must be rejected for the same reason.
IT IS ORDERED that the order appealed from is summarily affirmed under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21(1).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals