State v. Lalicata

¶ 1. The defendant, Tony Lalicata, argues that the trial court and his own trial counsel erred by failing to recognize that he was potentially eligible for a stayed sentence and probation under Wis. Stat. § 973.09(l)(a) (2009-10),1 instead of the mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment, upon his conviction of first-degree sexual assault of a child under age twelve. Lalicata's argument is a *344flawed reading of the statutes. The clear legislative intent is for the mandatory minimum period of imprisonment for first-degree child sexual assault to be truly mandatory, with no…