State v. Johnson

Full title: STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Ahmad R. JOHNSON…

Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Date published: Aug 21, 2012

821 N.W.2d 412 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012)

344 Wis. 2d 297

2012 WI App. 106

Opinion

No. 2011AP1519–CR.

2012-08-21

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Ahmad R. JOHNSON, Defendant–Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: David L. Borowski, Judge. Affirmed.
Before CURLEY, P.J., FINE and KESSLER, JJ.¶ 1PER CURIAM.

Ahmad R. Johnson appeals a judgment convicting him of aggravated battery to a physically disabled person. He also appeals an order denying his motion for sentence modification or resentencing. He argues that his due process rights were violated because the circuit court sentenced him based on inaccurate information. We affirm.

¶ 2 “A defendant has a constitutionally protected due process right to be sentenced upon accurate information.” State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, ¶ 9, 291 Wis.2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1. “Whether a defendant has been denied this due process right is a constitutional issue that an appellate court reviews de novo.” Id. A defendant who seeks resentencing because the circuit court based its sentence on inaccurate information must show that the information was inaccurate and that the circuit court actually relied on the inaccurate information at sentencing. Id., ¶ 26.

¶ 3 Johnson contends that the circuit court relied on inaccurate information when it sentenced him because it believed that he harassed, intimidated and abused the victim, and framed its sentence with that information in mind. We reject this argument because Johnson has failed to show that the sentencing court relied on inaccurate information. During the initial stages of the case, the circuit court rescinded Johnson's jail telephone privileges because he repeatedly attempted to dissuade the victim from testifying against him. At the sentencing hearing, the victim told the circuit court that she had suffered physical and mental abuse at Johnson's hands for a lengthy period of time. Based on Johnson's repeated attempts to dissuade the victim from pursuing the case and the victim's testimony at sentencing that Johnson had abused her for a lengthy period of time, the circuit court properly concluded that Johnson had harassed, intimidated and abused the victim.

Judgment and order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. SeeWis. Stat. RuleE 809.23(1)(b)5. (2009–10).