State v. Tarwid

Robert Tarwid appeals from a judgment of conviction for party to the crime of delivery of a controlled substance, as a repeater, contrary to secs. 161.41(l)(b), 161.41(2)(b)(l), 939.05 and 161.48, Stats. Tarwid contends that he was denied due process when the trial court imposed a harsher sentence following his prior successful appeal. Additionally, he argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to suppress evidence of drugs which had been destroyed after his first conviction in accordance with police procedures.

Because several new, objective factors were presented…