Appeals Court Orders New Sentencing in Newell Case

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed a postconviction order in State v. Newell and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing.

Updated on Nov. 2, 2026 in Criminal Justice

Flat-color editorial illustration of a simplified courthouse facade in deep red and cream, standing alone in an empty plaza under even overcast light. — The Wisconsin Court of Appeals ordered a new sentencing hearing for Lemar C. Newell Jr., after the State failed to honor its plea agreement on a second count. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the postconviction order in State v. Newell and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. The State had agreed at sentencing that a second count was dismissed and read in, contrary to the plea agreement.

Why it matters

Read-in charges carry greater sentencing consequences than charges dismissed outright, so the characterization of the second count directly affected the punishment Lemar C. Newell, Jr. received. The ruling underscores that plea agreements must be honored as bargained for.

The Court of Appeals reversed the postconviction order and remanded for resentencing before a different judge, after finding counsel performed deficiently by not objecting. The new sentence has not been set, and the record does not indicate when the resentencing hearing will occur.

The players

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

The state's intermediate appellate court, which reviews trial court rulings and here reversed the postconviction order in the Newell case.

The details

Newell pleaded guilty to first-degree reckless homicide under an agreement requiring the State to recommend 25 to 28 years of initial confinement and to dismiss the second count outright. At sentencing the State agreed with the circuit court's characterization of that count as dismissed and read in, and Newell's counsel did not object; the court imposed 28 years initial confinement and 12 years extended supervision.

Plea and original sentencing dates were not specified in the source.
The Court of Appeals issued its ruling on November 2, 2026, reversing and remanding for resentencing.

Legal Context

The court rejected the State's argument that Puckett v. United States displaced the presumed-prejudice rule of State v. Smith, keeping Wisconsin's existing framework for plea-related ineffective assistance claims intact. The ruling thus applies Wisconsin precedent to a plea agreement that was not honored as written.

Plea agreements are enforced in Wisconsin courts, so defendants and their attorneys face consequences when terms are misstated at sentencing. The remand means Newell's sentence will be reconsidered under the terms he agreed to.

The takeaway

Plea deals depend on precise terms, and a misstated charge at sentencing can change the outcome. Defense counsel's timely objections play a central role in protecting those terms.