March 9, 2018 at 3:29 p.m.
State responds to Martinson appeal
Brief refutes claim that judge Michael Bloom exceeded authority on sentence
State responds to Martinson appeal
Mark A. Schoenfeldt, appellate attorney for Ashlee A. Martinson, filed the motion Dec. 22, saying that in his statements prior to handing down a 23-year prison sentence, judge Michael Bloom "erroneously abused his discretion" by saying Martinson "had a choice" when she shot her step-father Thomas Ayers and stabbed her mother Jennifer Ayers March 7, 2015 in their town of Piehl home.
On Wednesday, assistant attorney general Jeffrey J. Kassel answered Schoenfeldt's brief with one of his own, arguing that Bloom did not abuse his discretion and asking the court of appeals to deny Martinson's motion for resentencing.
At issue in the appeal is whether Bloom, in allowing Oneida County District Attorney Michael Schiek to amend the charges from two counts of first-degree intentional homicide to two counts of second-degree intentional homicide but with adequate provocation, precluded that Martinson was in a frame of mind at the time of the killings to have a choice in her actions.
Under state statute, the definition of adequate provocation as it applied in this case would be something that is "sufficient to cause complete lack of self-control in an ordinarily constituted person."
Schoenfeldt argues in his motion that Bloom saying Martinson did have a choice failed to take into account that she was diagnosed by two mental health professionals as suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive disorder from a lifetime of physical, mental and sexual abuse, and therefore she was not an "ordinarily constituted person" as per the statute.
Kassel argues in his reply brief that the court of appeals should reject Martinson's appeal for five reasons:
• Martinson's brief does not cite any authority to support the assertion Bloom exceeded his discretion.
• The argument is contrary to established case law that a circuit court makes its own assessment of the facts at sentencing.
• Under state statute, when Schiek filed the amended information charging Martinson with second-degree intentional homicide/adequate provocation, he conceded only that he could not disprove the mitigating circumstances of adequate provocation beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The parties' plea agreement that Martinson acted in circumstances which established adequate provocation was not binding on the circuit court.
• There was information in the record which supported the circuit court's statement that Martinson had a choice.
Kassel also wrote that the two experts who evaluated Martinson as part of a not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect plea both found - as Bloom said during the sentencing hearing - the disorders Martinson suffered "did not deprive her of an appreciation of the wrongfulness of her conduct and also did not deprive her of the ability to conform her conduct to the law."
"The existence of the defendant's mental illness as it applies to her character and to the situation as a whole is a mitigating factor, but I don't believe that it refutes the proposition that the defendant did have a choice on March 7th of 2015 and, in my judgment, the most important point that needs to be made by way of this proceeding is that yes, the defendant had a choice," Kassel continued.
He went on during the sentencing hearing to say that while Martinson's quality of life was severely threatened by Ayers, her "life itself" was not threatened at the time of the killings.
In the end, the central theme of Kassel's brief is that Bloom was not statutorily bound by the plea agreement and "has an independent duty to look beyond the recommendations and to consider all relevant sentencing factors," it said, citing established case law.
According to a spokesperson with the court of appeals, once Schoenfeldt is formally served with Kassel's brief, he will have 15 days to file a written reply brief. Because both sides have waived their right to make oral arguments in the case, the three-judge panel will make its ruling based on the filed documents and issue a decision, a process which could take between four and six months.
If the court of appeals rules against her, Schoenfeldt could then appeal Martinson's case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Jamie Taylor may be reached via email at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.