State v. Samsa
859 N.W.2d 149
Wis. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Jordan Samsa pleaded no contest to third-degree sexual assault for sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old; parties recommended a presentence investigation (PSI).
- PSI included a COMPAS assessment; COMPAS actuarial risk score indicated low risk of reoffense while its criminogenic-needs scales showed multiple high-need areas.
- The State sought a prison sentence; defense recommended withheld sentence and probation with one year jail.
- At sentencing the circuit court reviewed the COMPAS report, rejected the low actuarial risk, treated high criminogenic-need scores as evidence of greater risk, and imposed the maximum five years initial confinement plus five years extended supervision.
- Samsa filed a postconviction motion arguing the court misapplied COMPAS (using needs to show dangerousness) and alternatively that corrected COMPAS information was a new factor warranting sentence modification; the court denied relief.
- Samsa appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding the court acted within its sentencing discretion and the supplemental COMPAS info was not a new factor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erroneously relied on COMPAS criminogenic-needs to assess dangerousness | Samsa: court misapplied COMPAS by treating needs scores (meant to guide programming) as indicia of high risk, contrary to COMPAS actuarial risk score | State/Court: court may consider COMPAS components selectively and reject actuarial conclusions based on court's evaluation of overall circumstances | Held: No error — sentencing court properly exercised discretion to reject COMPAS risk conclusion and consider needs in assessing risk |
| Whether accurate information about COMPAS constitutes a "new factor" justifying sentence modification | Samsa: supplemental report explaining COMPAS principles shows original sentence rested on a misunderstanding and thus is a new factor | State/Court: court already knew distinction between risk and needs; Samsa's materials do not present facts unknown at sentencing nor change the court's lawful exercise of discretion | Held: Not a new factor — defendant failed to meet clear-and-convincing burden |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jackson, 110 Wis. 2d 548, 329 N.W.2d 182 (discusses broad sentencing discretion)
- State v. Gallion, 258 Wis. 2d 473, 654 N.W.2d 446 (sets three primary sentencing factors and review standard for sentencing discretion)
- State v. Harbor, 333 Wis. 2d 53, 797 N.W.2d 828 (describes burden and standard for establishing a new factor)
- State v. Scaccio, 240 Wis. 2d 95, 622 N.W.2d 449 (new-factor review is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Rosado v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 280, 234 N.W.2d 69 (defines a new factor)
- Elias v. State, 93 Wis. 2d 278, 286 N.W.2d 559 (defines improper sentencing factors as immaterial or irrelevant)