# State v. Campbell

> Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · December 7, 2010 · 331 Wis. 2d 91

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8203414

## Case

- **Full name:** State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Mark Allan Campbell
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
- **Decided:** December 7, 2010
- **Citations:** 331 Wis. 2d 91; 794 N.W.2d 276; 2011 WI App 18; 2010 Wisc. App. LEXIS 990
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brunner
- **Judges:** Brunner, Hoover, Peterson
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8203414

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that a prosecutor who was required to recommend a twenty-year sentence did not breach the plea agreement by highlighting the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and arguing for a significant sentence because a twenty-year sentence is a significant sentence

## Opinion text

BRUNNER, J.
*107 ¶ 31. I concur with the mandate, however, because unlike the error in Huck, the error in this case was harmless. Campbell was ordered resentenced as a result of his earlier appeal. See State v. Campbell, No. 2008AP2065-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App May 5, 2009). At Campbell's first sentencing hearing before Judge Wing, the prosecutor stated he was recommending five years' initial confinement. Although the State omitted this recommendation at Campbell's resentencing before Judge Duvall, the court indicated it "did read the original sentencing transcript. . . because I view this as a kind of a continuation of that original sentencing hearing." Because Judge Duvall was aware that the State was on the record as supporting the sentencing recommendation, resentencing would serve no purpose here.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8203414. Public record. Not legal advice.