Criminal Postconviction & Appellate Representation
Practice
Trial-level and appellate or postconviction representation in cases involving allegations of possession, distribution, or production of child sexual abuse material; internet crimes against children, and cases at the intersection of technology and the Fourth Amendment.
Representation in direct appeals from criminal convictions in federal courts, addressing trial errors, evidentiary issues, and constitutional violations.
Representation in direct appeals from criminal convictions in Wisconsin state courts, addressing trial errors, evidentiary issues, and constitutional violations.
Specialized representation and consultation in cases involving the anonymous peer-to-peer network Freenet/Hyphanet, with expertise in Fourth Amendment technology issues.
Representation of victims of domestic abuse, stalking, and harassment in injunction proceedings on a case-by-case basis.
Federal court challenges to state court convictions based on constitutional violations that were not properly addressed in state proceedings.
Preparation and argument of petitions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, seeking review of Court of Appeals decisions in criminal cases.
Post-conviction motions challenging federal convictions based on constitutional violations, ineffective assistance, or jurisdictional issues.
Specialized petitions addressing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in Wisconsin criminal cases.
Petitions to the United States Supreme Court seeking review of federal appellate court decisions in criminal cases.
Motions seeking reduction or modification of criminal sentences based on new factors or changed circumstances.
Challenges to a conviction filed after an unsuccessful direct appeal or after the timeline for a direct appeal has expired.
Motions seeking reduction or modification of criminal sentences based on new factors or changed circumstances.
After the time for a direct appeal has expired or a direct appeal was unsuccessful, a defendant may request that the trial court modify the sentence based on the existence of a "new factor," a fact or circumstance that is highly relevant to the issue of sentencing but was unknown to the trial court when the defendant was originally sentenced. Often, the new factor might not have been in existence at the time of the original sentencing. Other times, the factor was in existence but was overlooked by all of the parties involved in the case.
A new factor is "highly relevant" to an original sentence if it impacts an aspect of sentencing that the trial court actually focused on and considered important to imposing the sentence. For example, where the sentencing court emphasizes that the primary purpose of the sentence is punishment of the offender, new factors that relate to rehabilitation or protection of the public might not be considered new factors. One example of a new factor is providing substantial assistance to the government or law enforcement, while things like medical or mental health issues and successful rehabilitation while imprisoned are not.
The existence of a new factor does not guarantee that the defendant will receive a sentence modification. The court must be convinced that the new factor justifies modification of the sentence, and the court will look at the totality of the circumstances when making that decision, including the defendant's conduct since the original sentence was imposed, new criminal charges, or information that came to light after the original sentencing.
It is important to consult with an experienced attorney when preparing a motion for sentence modification, as how the issues are framed can play a significant role in demonstrating that a new factor exists and that it justifies sentence modification.