Wisconsin Sentencing Appeal Lawyers

Even when the conviction itself will stand, the sentence may not deserve to. Judges have broad discretion at sentencing, but that discretion has legal limits: a sentence must rest on accurate information, proper factors, and a rational explanation. When a court relies on a misstated criminal history, an improper consideration, or — in federal court — a miscalculated Guidelines range, the sentence is vulnerable.

Strang Bradley challenges sentences in Wisconsin state courts and in the federal system, where our attorneys’ experience includes United States v. Booker — the U.S. Supreme Court decision that made the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory and created the modern framework of reasonableness review. Sentencing law is not a sideline for this firm; it is a subject we helped shape.

Grounds to Challenge a Sentence

• Reliance on inaccurate information — a defendant has a due process right to be sentenced on accurate information
• Improper sentencing factors, including punishment for exercising the right to trial
• Erroneous exercise of discretion — a sentence unexplained or unsupported by the record
• Federal Guidelines errors — miscalculated offense levels, criminal history scoring, and enhancement disputes
• Procedurally or substantively unreasonable federal sentences
• Sentence credit errors and unlawful conditions of extended supervision

Sentence Modification in Wisconsin

Appeal is not the only route. Wisconsin circuit courts may modify a sentence in some instances, and at any time when the defense presents a new factor — a fact highly relevant to sentencing that was unknowingly overlooked or did not exist when sentence was imposed. Identifying and framing a genuine new factor is exacting legal work, and courts reject motions that simply re-argue the original sentencing. We build modification motions that give judges a legally sound basis to act.

Why Choose Strang Bradley for a Sentencing Challenge

Sentencing challenges live at the intersection of law and persuasion: the legal error must be real, and the argument for a different outcome must be compelling. Our attorneys combine deep sentencing-law expertise—state and federal—with the writing appellate courts reward. We will review the sentencing transcript and tell you candidly whether a challenge is worth bringing.