Background
Police identified Andrell Marquise Wesley and Jovan Newman as two of several armed participants in a September 2020 shootout outside a Milwaukee bar. Approximately twenty-two shots were fired, striking vehicles, businesses, the bar, and a residence. Wesley and Newman were separately charged with first-degree recklessly endangering safety while using a dangerous weapon as parties to a crime and possession of a firearm by a felon. Each pleaded guilty to the firearm-possession charge, with the reckless-endangerment charge dismissed and read in.
Before their state sentencings, both men received federal prison sentences for drug and gun charges arising from an unrelated incident: Wesley received 144 months and Newman received 130 months. Newman later received five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision on the state charge, concurrent with his federal sentence. At Wesley’s sentencing, the parties made essentially a joint recommendation for three and a half years of initial confinement to run concurrently with his federal sentence. The circuit court instead imposed two years of initial confinement and two years of extended supervision, consecutive to the federal sentence. It later denied Wesley’s motion to modify the sentence as unduly harsh.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in imposing Wesley’s four-year state sentence consecutively. Because the state offense was unrelated to the federal offenses for which Wesley was already serving time, the circuit court was not required to give a separate explanation for choosing a consecutive rather than concurrent sentence. It nevertheless adequately explained that concurrency would mean Wesley served no additional time for participating in an exceptionally dangerous shooting and that additional punishment was necessary for accountability, public protection, and rehabilitation.
The court also rejected Wesley’s argument that his sentence was unduly harsh when compared with Newman’s concurrent sentence. A disparity between co-actors is not improper merely because they were convicted of the same crime arising from the same event; the defendant must show that the disparity was arbitrary or rested on considerations unrelated to proper sentencing. Wesley did not make that showing. The record reflected relevant differences, including Wesley’s more serious federal criminal-history category, his more recent felony record, repeat-offender enhancers in his original state charges, and the sentencing court’s skepticism about the sincerity of his apology.
Key Takeaways
- A Wisconsin sentencing court has wide discretion to make a state sentence consecutive to an existing sentence for unrelated offenses.
- When the existing sentence concerns unrelated past conduct, the court need not separately justify every aspect of its concurrency decision if it considers proper sentencing factors, explains the overall sentence, and reaches a reasonable result.
- A co-actor’s more lenient sentence does not establish an unduly harsh sentence absent proof that the disparity was arbitrary or based on improper considerations.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores Wisconsin’s commitment to individualized sentencing: even co-actors convicted of the same offense arising from the same incident need not receive equivalent treatment. A sentencing court may give greater weight to the offense’s gravity, public safety, criminal history, culpability, and rehabilitative needs than to parity with another defendant.
The opinion also distinguishes sentences imposed consecutively to existing terms for unrelated offenses from multiple sentences imposed at a single proceeding. Although the court identified explaining the choice as a best practice, it held that a separate concurrency explanation was not legally required under the circumstances presented here.