court shall. . . consider the following," and then lists the specifically identified factors to be considered. Like our supreme court in Grady, we conclude that "the record of the sentencing hearing" must "demonstrate [] that the court actually considered" the factors specifically enumerated in § 343.44(2)(b). See Grady, 302 Wis. 2d 80, ¶ 44; see also § 343.44(2)(b). ¶ 29. An appellate court will remand for new sentencing only if it is clear the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in sentencing the defendant. See McCleary v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 263, 278, 182 N.W.2d 512 (1971). A court erroneously exercises its sentencing discretion when it fails to consider factors it is required by statute to consider. See LaRocque v. LaRocque, 139 Wis. 2d 23, 33, 406 N.W.2d 736 (1987) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Bizzle, 222 Wis. 2d 100,
holding that trial court retains wide discretion to apply or reject mitigating and aggravating factors as well as to interpret meaning of individual factors and its determination must be upheld absent abuse of discretion holding trial court abused its discretion when it denied a motion for mistrial after erroneously concluding an issue could be dealt with at sentencing holding that with regard to preliminary injunction a district court abuses its discretion if it fails to make specific findings regarding the various factors it is required to consider holding that a local governmental body exceeds its jurisdiction under crcp 106a4 when it exercises discretion it does not have holding the circuit court erroneously exercises its discretion if it fails to apply or misapplies statutory factors