Background
Jovany Jeronimo was convicted by a jury of felony murder as a party to a crime after an armed robbery during a drug purchase resulted in Natanael Zapata-Santiago’s death. The evidence showed that Jeronimo, Ernesto Garcia, and Fabian Herrera participated in the robbery; Jeronimo and Garcia displayed handguns, and a shot fired as the men fled killed Zapata-Santiago.
Jeronimo received 18 years of initial confinement and eight years of extended supervision. Garcia, who may have fired the fatal shot but whom the circuit court found was not definitively established as the shooter, received 15 years of initial confinement and eight years of supervision. Jeronimo sought sentence modification and a new trial, contending that the sentencing disparity was unfair and that counsel should have sought suppression of live-lineup identifications.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the judgment and postconviction orders. A sentencing court may consider a co-actor’s sentence in deciding whether a sentence is unduly harsh, but it is not required to equalize sentences. The circuit court properly imposed an individualized sentence based on Jeronimo’s participation in the planned robbery, character, juvenile record, rehabilitative needs, danger to the community, and deterrence. His 26-year sentence was well below the 55-year maximum and was not unduly harsh or unconscionable.
The court also upheld the denial of a Machner hearing on ineffective assistance. Jeronimo’s assertions that lineup fillers differed in race, hairstyle, facial hair, body type, tattoos, and complexion did not explain how the variations improperly directed witnesses to identify him. The lineup participants were young men of similar age and stature in nearly identical jail clothing, and the witnesses had been told that hair and facial hair can change. Counsel was likewise not deficient for failing to raise a Sixth Amendment lineup claim in 2021, when the relevant legal question was unsettled.
Key Takeaways
- A co-defendant’s lesser sentence does not itself require sentence modification; Wisconsin sentencing remains individualized.
- Differences among lineup participants do not establish impermissible suggestiveness without facts showing that the differences pointed witnesses toward the suspect.
- Defense counsel is not ineffective for failing to advance an unsettled legal argument.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the broad discretion Wisconsin circuit courts retain to impose different sentences on participants in the same offense, even where evidence suggests another participant may have fired the fatal shot. It also reinforces that postconviction ineffective-assistance claims challenging eyewitness procedures must allege specific, nonconclusory facts showing suggestiveness and resulting entitlement to relief.