On Point: 2. Modification

State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, 2023 WI 49, 6/20/23, reversing and remanding a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Reaffirming that the Department of Corrections, not the circuit court, is responsible for regulating the day-to-day affairs of persons being supervised by DOC, the supreme court sends this case back to the circuit court for it to either modify the supervision condition it ordered in this case or clarify how it is consistent with the law.

State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 11/16/22; case activity (including PFR, PFR response, and briefs)

Issue presented (from the defendant’s PFR)

Can a circuit court use its statutory authority to modify conditions of probation and extended supervision to regulate the day-to-day affairs of individuals on supervision, contrary to statutes conferring on the Department of Corrections the exclusive authority to administer probation?

State v. Carl L. Dowdy, 2012 WI 12, affirming 2010 WI App 58; for Dowdy: Bryan J. Cahill; Amicus: Dustin Haskell (SPD), Robert Henak (WACDL); case activity

¶4   We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 973.09(3)(a) does not grant a circuit court authority to reduce the length of probation.  Rather, the plain language of § 973.09(3)(a) grants a circuit court authority only to “extend probation for a stated period”

court of appeals decision; for Dowdy: Bryan J. Cahill; Amicus: Dustin Haskell (SPD), Robert Henak (WACDL); case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether authority granted a circuit court by § 973.09(3)(a) to “extend probation for a stated period or modify the terms and conditions thereof,” includes the power to reduce the length of the term of probation.

Whether a circuit court has inherent authority to reduce the length of the term of probation.

State v. Carl L. Dowdy, 2010 WI App 58, review granted, 3/16/11; for Dowdy: Bryan Cahill; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Judges lack statutory authority to reduce the length of probation.

¶16      We conclude that we do not have cause to refer to legislative history or other extrinsic tools, because the plain language of Wis.

State v. Bernard G. Fearing, 2000 WI App 229, 239 Wis.2d 105, 619 N.W.2d 115
For Fearing: Patrick J. Stangl

Issue: Whether a defendant must first raise a challenge to a condition of probation in a trial-level postconviction motion before seeking relief in the appellate court.

Holding: Even if the rule that review of a sentence requires a trial-level motion applies to review of a condition of probation,