Background
Kevin Patrick Raye pleaded no contest to seven felony theft counts and one count of misconduct in public office. While employed by Brown County, Raye used county funds over several years to purchase approximately $1.2 million in wireless access points, sold them through his personal company for approximately $640,000, and used the proceeds for personal purchases.
The circuit court imposed an aggregate sentence of 22 years—10 years of initial confinement and 12 years of extended supervision. Raye did not pursue a direct appeal but later moved pro se for postconviction relief under Wis. Stat. § 974.06, arguing principally that sentences imposed on defendants in allegedly similar cases warranted modification of his sentence. The circuit court denied the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It declined to consider Raye’s appellate claim that the sentencing court relied on inaccurate information about his rehabilitative needs because he had not presented a developed version of that claim to the circuit court. Merely mentioning the Department of Corrections’ assessment in his postconviction filings did not adequately preserve the issue.
The court also held that the sentences imposed in other defendants’ cases were not a “new factor” supporting sentence modification because they were not highly relevant to Raye’s sentence. Wisconsin requires individualized sentencing, not equal sentences for defendants convicted of similar crimes. The court further concluded that Raye’s sentence was not unduly harsh or unconscionable given the elaborate, years-long scheme, the amount stolen, the abuse of public employment, and the harm to Brown County and public confidence.
Key Takeaways
- An issue is not preserved for appeal unless it is developed with sufficient prominence to alert the circuit court that a ruling is requested.
- Sentences imposed in other cases do not constitute a new factor when they were not highly relevant to the sentencing decision.
- Raye’s 22-year aggregate sentence was well below the 78.5-year maximum and was not so disproportionate to his offenses as to be unduly harsh or unconscionable.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that sentence comparisons alone ordinarily will not justify modification in Wisconsin because sentencing turns on the circumstances of the individual defendant and offenses. It also illustrates the importance of clearly developing every requested ground for postconviction relief in the circuit court before raising it on appeal.