District II
May 22, 2013
To:
Hon. Thomas R. Wolfgram
Circuit Court Judge
Ozaukee County Circuit Court
1201 South Spring Street
Port Washington, WI 53074-0994
Marylou Mueller
Clerk of Circuit Court
Ozaukee County Circuit Court
1201 South Spring Street
Port Washington, WI 53074-0994
Adam Y. Gerol
District Attorney
P.O. Box 994
Port Washington, WI 53074-0994
Michael L. Lamont
The Lamont Law LLC
405 East Forest Street
Oconomowoc, WI 53066
Michael C. Sanders
Assistant Attorney General
P. O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Wisconsin v. Kevin C. Conry (L.C. # 2011CF81) |
|
|
|
|
|
Before Neubauer, P.J., Reilly and Gundrum, JJ.
Kevin C. Conry appeals from a
judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for postconviction
relief. Conry contends that the circuit
court erroneously exercised its discretion at sentencing. 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 the judgment and order of the
circuit court.
Conry was convicted following a guilty plea to two
counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of use of a
computer to facilitate a child sex crime.
The charges stemmed from a sexual relationship Conry had with a
fifteen-year-old girl he met online. The
circuit court sentenced Conry to a total of fifteen years of initial
confinement and thirty years of extended supervision. Conry subsequently filed a motion for
postconviction relief, arguing that the court erroneously exercised its discretion
at sentencing. The court denied his
motion. This appeal follows.
Sentencing is left to the discretion of the circuit
court, and appellate review is limited to determining whether there was an
erroneous exercise of discretion. State
v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶17, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. We afford a strong presumption of
reasonability to the circuit court’s sentencing determination because that
court is best suited to consider the relevant factors and demeanor of the
defendant. State v. Ziegler, 2006 WI
App 49, ¶22, 289 Wis. 2d 594, 712 N.W.2d 76.
To properly exercise its discretion, a circuit court
must provide a rational and explainable basis for the sentence. State v. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181, ¶8,
276 Wis. 2d
224, 688 N.W.2d 20. It must specify the
objectives of the sentence on the record, which include, but are not limited
to, protection of the community, punishment of the defendant, rehabilitation of
the defendant, and deterrence of others. Id.
The primary sentencing factors that a
court must consider are the gravity of the offense, the character of the
defendant, and the need to protect the public. Ziegler, 289 Wis. 2d 594, ¶23. The weight to be given to each sentencing
factor is within the discretion of the court. Id.
On appeal, Conry contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at sentencing. Specifically, he complains that the court did not adequately explain the sentence it imposed so as to allow meaningful appellate review.
Reviewing the circuit court’s remarks, we are satisfied that it provided a rational and explainable basis for the sentence imposed. Here, the court explicitly considered the gravity of the offense, the character of the defendant, and the need to protect the public. In doing so, it explained why it rejected probation and why it was imposing a sentence that would likely result in supervision for the rest of Conry’s life. Although the court did not articulate why Conry received a total of fifteen years of initial confinement, as opposed to a shorter or longer term, a proper exercise of discretion does not require a court to justify the sentence with mathematical precision. Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶49. In any event, on the basis of this record, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing Conry and in denying his motion for postconviction relief.
Upon the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment and order of the
circuit court are summarily affirmed, pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals