State v. Jerrell D. Johnson

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
July 22, 2025
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2024AP949-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2021CF1191

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

JERRELL D. JOHNSON,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for
Milwaukee County: JEAN M. KIES, Judge. Affirmed.

Before White, C.J., Geenen and Colón, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
No. 2024AP949-CR

¶1 PER CURIAM. Jerrell D. Johnson appeals from a judgment
convicting him of one count of homicide by the negligent handling of a dangerous
weapon and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He also appeals
the order denying his postconviction motion for sentence modification. Upon
review, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On March 29, 2021, the State charged Johnson with one count of
felony murder as a party to the crime (stemming from an armed robbery) and one
count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. According to the complaint, on
September 17, 2020, Milwaukee police were dispatched to the scene of a shooting
where they discovered the victim, M.D.H., dead in the front seat of his car.
M.D.H. had sustained gunshot wounds to his head and neck. Johnson’s fingerprint
was discovered on the passenger side of M.D.H.’s car and surveillance video
showed someone matching Johnson’s appearance running from M.D.H.’s vehicle.

¶3 Johnson ultimately pled guilty to an amended charge of homicide by
the negligent handling of a dangerous weapon and to being a felon in possession
of a firearm. At the plea hearing, Johnson’s counsel provided the factual basis for
Johnson’s pleas, telling the circuit court that on the morning of the shooting,
M.D.H. was meeting with Johnson to buy drugs. At some point M.D.H. pointed a
gun at Johnson. The two fought over the gun, which went off while it was in
Johnson’s hand, killing M.D.H. Johnson panicked and ran away with the gun.
The State, Johnson, and the court all accepted this version of events as providing
the factual basis for Johnson’s pleas. The court also reviewed the potential
penalties for each offense with Johnson and Johnson stated that he understood.
The court accepted Johnson’s pleas and later sentenced him to five years of initial

2
No. 2024AP949-CR

confinement followed by five years of extended supervision on the homicide
charge and four years of initial confinement and one year of initial confinement on
the felon in possession charge, to run consecutively.

¶4 Following sentencing, Johnson filed a postconviction motion for
sentence modification, arguing that the circuit court erroneously exercised its
discretion in imposing “unduly harsh” consecutive sentences based on the fact that
he was acting in self-defense, did not have a significant criminal record, and had a
full-time job. The postconviction court denied the motion without a hearing,
stating that the record supported Johnson’s sentence and that his claim of self-
defense “[did] not fully capture all of the facts of this case.” This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION

¶5 On appeal, Johnson reiterates his postconviction claim that the
circuit court’s sentence was unduly harsh because it did not appropriately consider
that Johnson was “acting in self-defense, did not have a significant record of prior
convictions, and had a full-time job” (some capitalization omitted). We disagree.

¶6 A circuit court has the authority to modify a sentence that is “unduly
harsh or unconscionable.” State v. Cummings, 2014 WI 88, ¶71, 357 Wis. 2d 1,
850 N.W.2d 915 (citation omitted). “A sentence is unduly harsh or
unconscionable ‘only where the sentence is so excessive and unusual and so
disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock public sentiment and violate
the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper under the
circumstances.’” Id., ¶72 (citation omitted). A sentence that is “well within” the
statutory limits is unlikely to be unduly harsh or unconscionable. Id., ¶74.

3
No. 2024AP949-CR

¶7 Whether the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and unconscionable
presents a question that we review for an erroneous exercise of discretion. State v.
Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, ¶30, 255 Wis. 2d 632, 648 N.W.2d 507. We will
uphold a circuit court’s discretionary decision if it “applied the proper legal
standards to the facts before it, and through a process of reasoning, reached a
result which a reasonable judge could reach.” Id.

¶8 Here, Johnson was convicted of one count of homicide by the
negligent handling of a weapon and one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, both Class G felonies carrying potential maximum 10-year sentences and
$25,000 fines. See WIS. STAT. §§ 940.08, 941.29, 939.50(3)(g) (2023-24).1
Neither of the circuit court’s sentences exceeded the maximum penalties.
Moreover, the record shows that the court appropriately considered Johnson’s
character, the gravity of the offenses, and the public’s need for protection. See
State v. Odom, 2006 WI App 145, ¶7, 294 Wis. 2d 844, 720 N.W.2d 695.
Specifically, the court considered Johnson’s positive attributes, his willingness to
accept responsibility for his actions, and his strong family support. The court also
considered Johnson’s somewhat dated criminal history, the need to protect the
community, and the need “to send a message to our community [] that our people
deserve better[.]” The postconviction court also noted that Johnson’s self-defense
claim was somewhat disingenuous, as it “did not fully capture all of the facts of
this case … [and] … if all of [Johnson’s] actions were lawfully privileged acts of
self-defense, this would not have been before the court for sentencing.” In short,
the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its sentencing discretion and the

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

4
No. 2024AP949-CR

postconviction court did not erroneously deny Johnson’s motion for sentence
modification.

CONCLUSION

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of conviction and
the order denying Johnson’s motion for sentence modification.

By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

5