State v. Geoffrey D. Kasmarek
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2006 WI 123 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 2004AP3285-CR COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Geoffrey D. Kasmarek, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (no cite) OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: November 9, 2006 October 30, 2006 Circuit Waukesha Mark S. Gempeler & Donald J. Hassin, Jr. JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Jeffrey W. Jensen and Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Jensen, Milwaukee, and oral argument by Jeffrey W. Jensen. For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Eileen W. Pray, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. 2006 WI 123 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2004AP3285-CR (L.C. No. 2002CF975) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, FILED v. NOV 9, 2006 Geoffrey D. Kasmarek, Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Dismissed as improvidently granted. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Geoffrey D. Kasmarek (Kasmarek) petitioned this court for review of a court of appeals decision which summarily affirmed a judgment of conviction and order denying postconviction relief, entered in the Waukesha County Circuit Court, the Honorable Mark S. Gempeler and the Honorable Donald J. Hassin, Jr., respectively, presiding. ¶2 Kasmarek petitioned this court for review stating his specific grounds as follows: No. 2004AP3285-CR the issue presented by this petition is one which offers the Supreme Court the opportunity to clarify the law concerning when a sentence is unduly harsh. In the past the courts have consistently held that the statutory maximum is the primary protection against unduly harsh sentences; however, these cases rarely involve numerous counts of crimes with lengthy maximums. . . . ¶3 We accepted review to determine the issue presented. ¶4 After examining the record, along with the briefs of the parties, and after hearing oral argument, we have determined that the request to clarify the unduly harsh standard as applied to multiple presented. count sentences was, to a large extent, not Instead the argument focused, almost entirely, on whether the circuit court s explanation for the sentence imposed was sufficient. ¶5 does not Under these circumstances, we conclude that this case adequately present the issue for which we granted review; therefore, we dismiss the petition for review. By the Court. The review of the decision of the court of appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted. 2 No. 1 2004AP3285-CR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
