Sexual assault case resolved with deferred entry of judgment, no jail time

An 18-year-old Rhinelander man originally charged with child enticement and second-degree sexual assault of a child was sentenced last week to one year probation and no jail time.

Sawyer R. Schmidt will be required to perform community service and undergo a psychosexual evaluation as part of the resolution of the case which saw the state amend the charges to causing mental harm to a child, felony child abuse (intentionally cause harm) and misdemeanor battery.

Schmidt entered no contest pleas to all counts and Judge Mike Schiek accepted Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) agreements on the two felonies. He ordered one year probation on the misdemeanor battery count.

If the defendant successfully completes the terms of the agreements — a two-year agreement on the causing mental harm to a child count and a four-year agreement on the child abuse count — he can request expungement of the charges. Conversely, a violation of the agreements could result in the state filing a motion to rescind which, if granted, would result in “automatic conviction on felonies with exposures of up to 18 1/2 years.”

According to the criminal complaint, Schmidt sent explicit photos to a 14-year-old and then took the youth to a secluded area where the victim alleged there was nonconsensual sexual activity.

After the teen reported the assault to a parent the two traveled together to the area where the child said the assault occurred and retrieved a used condom and napkin. Both items were turned over to police for DNA testing, according to the complaint.

The Sept. 25 sentencing hearing began with Schiek denying an unusual motion filed by one of the victim’s parents requesting that the court intervene by filing a complaint charging the defendant with a sex crime.

“(The parent) wants different charges, but I don’t have, the district attorney has the discretion to file charges they feel are appropriate, they feel they can prove,” the judge said. “I don’t get involved with that.”

In a victim impact statement, the parent explained that the family was initially advised that the state was planning to ask for jail time and was both devastated and furious to learn that something had changed and jail time was off the table.

It was noted that the case was handled by former assistant district attorney Mary Sowinski, who has since taken the bench. Assistant district attorney Ben Meyer represented the state at sentencing but stressed that he was not involved in the plea negotiations.

The parent was extremely critical of the performance of both assistant district attorneys, alleging the prosecution team let the child down. The parent asked the court to order jail time despite the recommendation against it.

The victim also addressed the court.

“Who I was as a person was shattered in less than 30 minutes,” the child told Schiek. “I said no, and I wanted to go home. He didn’t care. He didn’t stop.”

“This adult man deserves to be held accountable for what he did,” the child added. “I was a good kid and didn’t deserve what he did to me that night. It will be with me forever.”

“How did this happen? How is this justice? He gets his record wiped clean if he follows a few rules. My memory will never be wiped clean.”

The statement ended with the child requesting the maximum sentence.

For his part, Meyer explained that the state’s goals were to avoid a trial, where there is always a possibility of an acquittal, and further scrutiny of the young victim. 

Defense attorney Lindsey Erickson stated that her client “was under the impression” that the victim was older. (Despite statements made earlier in the hearing indicating that the defendant has known the victim for years. In their statement, the child’s parent accused Schmidt of knowing “exactly” how old the child was.)

Erickson also noted that the incident took place one month after Schmidt turned 18 and at one point referred to him as a “boy”.

Because Sowinski is now on the bench, Erickson noted that she was the only person in the courtroom with firsthand knowledge of the plea negotiations. 

“The evidence and the investigation throughout the process led this in a different way,” she said, referencing information gleaned over the course of the last few months. “The evidence here just doesn’t support what the complaint indicates...”

She also defended the recommendation of no jail time.

“I don’t think that there is anything that jail is going to do for this case that hasn’t already been done,” she argued, noting that her client comes from a good family. 

“They are good citizens,” she said.

Offered an opportunity to speak on his own behalf, Schmidt declined to address the court.

Before announcing that he was going to accept the resolution as recommended, Schiek, a former prosecutor, spoke at length about the plea bargaining process and the complexities inherent in resolving these types of cases.

“The evolution of this case changed, and I can certainly appreciate that,” he said. “These cases always pose a difficult position when you have a situation in which it really comes down to what he said versus what she said.”

(He did note that the 14-year-old was legally unable to consent to any sexual activity.)

Schiek also stressed that there is no indication the defendant has any drug or alcohol issues which is a point in his favor in terms of his personal character.

A review hearing in the case is scheduled for November 2025.