State v. Isaiah Jeremy Guy

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.
March 31, 2026
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. 2023AP1833-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2017CF3208

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

ISAIAH JEREMY GUY,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for
Milwaukee County: MARK A. SANDERS, Judge. Affirmed.

Before White, C.J., Donald, and Geenen, 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. 2023AP1833-CR

¶1 PER CURIAM. Isaiah Jeremy Guy appeals a judgment of
conviction and order denying his postconviction motions. He argues: (1) the
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for unlawfully possessing a
firearm as a convicted felon; (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel;
(3) the circuit court relied on inaccurate information in sentencing; and (4) he is
entitled to resentencing based on the plain error. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The convictions arise from a July 2017 shooting outside a residence
in Milwaukee that resulted in the death of Maurice Stegall. Multiple witnesses
testified that Guy arrived at the scene with a long gun, accompanied by several
other armed men. Guy initiated a confrontation by punching Stegall. Guy and the
other men then fired multiple gunshots, one of which killed Stegall.

¶3 Police recovered multiple spent casings from the scene, and
evidence linked Guy to the vehicle involved, in which police found a case for a
long gun and ammunition. Narcotics were later found in Guy’s possession. The
jury found Guy guilty of first-degree reckless homicide, as a party to a crime,
possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of narcotic drugs. Guy sought
postconviction relief. The circuit court denied Guy’s postconviction motions after
several evidentiary hearings. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION

¶4 Guy contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he
possessed a “firearm,” defined as “a weapon which acts by the force of
gunpowder.” WISCONSIN JI-CRIMINAL 1343. He emphasizes that no witness

2
No. 2023AP1833-CR

testified to seeing him fire a long assault rifle-type weapon and that no firearm was
recovered.

¶5 We view the evidence most favorably to the verdict, and we will
reverse only if the evidence is so lacking in probative value and force that no
reasonable trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990).

¶6 The evidence was sufficient. Multiple witnesses testified that Guy
arrived at the scene of the confrontation armed with a long gun. Gunshots were
heard immediately after the confrontation began, and ShotSpotter detected twenty-
five gunshots near where the confrontation occurred. Police recovered twenty-
three nine-millimeter casings, and a firearms examiner testified that four different
nine-millimeter guns were involved. He further testified that some nine-
millimeter firearms may appear similar to long guns or rifles.

¶7 Police also recovered nine-millimeter ammunition and an empty
long gun case from the vehicle connected to Guy. From this evidence, the jury
could reasonably infer that Guy possessed a functioning firearm. The jury was not
required to accept the speculative theory that Guy carried an imitation weapon
during an armed attack. We therefore affirm the felon-in-possession conviction.

¶8 Guy also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
call certain police witnesses and for not further developing ballistics and
identification evidence.

¶9 To prevail, Guy must show both that his trial counsel performed
deficiently and that he was prejudiced. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

3
No. 2023AP1833-CR

668, 687 (1984). If a defendant fails on one prong of the Strickland test, we need
not address the other. Id. at 697.

¶10 Guy claims counsel should have called Detective Michael Tanem to
highlight discrepancies in eyewitness descriptions of the suspect’s height and
clothing. The circuit court found these discrepancies insignificant given that the
eyewitnesses knew Guy personally and identified him based on familiarity, not
fleeting observation. We agree with the court that Guy has not shown a
reasonable probability of a different outcome. See id. at 694.

¶11 Guy also argues counsel should have more fully introduced evidence
that one recovered casing was linked to a handgun recovered in a separate
investigation, while the testimony at trial showed that Guy was carrying a rifle or
“long gun.” Trial counsel attempted to pursue this line of evidence but the State
objected, and that objection was sustained. In any event, Guy’s liability for
homicide was charged as a party to a crime, and therefore, it does not matter if one
of the twenty-three casings came from a handgun as opposed to a rifle. Guy has
not shown prejudice.

¶12 Guy’s next claims of ineffective assistance are that his counsel
should have impeached the firearms examiner with asserted errors in the crime lab
report, and he should have called three police officers because their testimony
varied from the eyewitness testimony. Guy does not adequately develop these
arguments. Therefore, we do not address them further. See State v. Pettit, 171
Wis. 2d 627, 646, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (“We may decline to review
issues inadequately briefed.”).

¶13 Guy also argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the circuit
court relied on inaccurate information. A defendant has a due process right to be

4
No. 2023AP1833-CR

sentenced upon accurate information. State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, ¶9, 291
Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1. To obtain relief, the defendant must show that the
information was inaccurate and that the court actually relied on it. Id., ¶26.

¶14 Guy has not established the circuit court relied on inaccurate
information in its sentencing comments. As discussed above, although no witness
testified that they saw Guy pull the trigger, the record supported a reasonable
inference that Guy participated in the shooting. He arrived armed with a long gun,
initiated the confrontation, was accompanied by multiple armed accomplices, and
was himself shot during the exchange. The court was entitled to draw reasonable
inferences from these circumstances. The absence of direct testimony that Guy
fired a gun does not make the court’s inference that he did inaccurate.

¶15 Nor does the record show that the circuit court misunderstood that
Guy was charged under party-to-a-crime liability when the court imposed its
sentence. The court expressly recognized that it could not determine whose bullet
caused the fatal wound. Its comments reflect an assessment of Guy’s active role
in the armed confrontation. Because the court’s conclusions were supported by
the evidence and reasonable inferences from that evidence, Guy has not shown
reliance on inaccurate information.

¶16 Finally, Guy argues that he is entitled to resentencing because of
plain error by the circuit court. For the same reasons as above, Guy’s plain error
argument fails. Plain error requires an obvious and substantial error affecting a
defendant’s fundamental rights. See WIS. STAT. § 901.03(4); State v. Jorgensen,
2008 WI 60, ¶21, 310 Wis. 2d 138, 754 N.W.2d 77. Where the challenged
statements are supported by the record and constitute permissible inferences from
the evidence, no error occurred. Guy is therefore not entitled to resentencing.

5
No. 2023AP1833-CR

By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5 (2023-24).

6