On Point: B. Extended supervision

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.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Cochran: Michael J. Schmidt; BiC; Resp.

Probation Extension
Extension of probation due to failure to discharge restitution obligation upheld, against argument Cochran had made good-faith effort to pay but lacked ability to do so.

State v. Travis Joe Brimer, Jr., 2010 WI App 57; for Brimer: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

“The right against self-incrimination only applies at criminal proceedings or “other proceeding … where the answers might incriminate [the defendant] in future criminal proceedings.” Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 368 (1986) (citations omitted),” ¶7. Because a reconfinement hearing isn’t part of the criminal process,

State v. Clayborn L. Walker, 2008 WI 34, reversing 2007 WI App 142
For Walker: Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue: Whether the judge is required, at a TIS reconfinement hearing, to have read the original sentencing transcript.

Holding:

¶3        We agree with the State and conclude that State v. Gee [3] misinterpreted our decision in Brown.

State v. John C. Brown, 2006 WI 131, affirming 2006 WI App 44
For Brown: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Amicus: Robert R. Henak and Amelia L. Bizzaro; Walter J. Dickey & David E. Schultz

Issue/Holding:

¶22     We conclude that a reconfinement decision, like an initial sentencing decision, involves the circuit court’s discretion, and we review the circuit court’s decision to determine whether that discretion was erroneously exercised. 

State v. Donald Odom, 2006 WI App 145
For Odom: Eileen Miller Carter; J.C. Moore, SPD, Milwaukee Trial

Issue/Holding: The requirement of sentencing after probation revocation that the judge review the original sentencing transcript, State v. Reynolds, 2002 WI App 15, 249 Wis. 2d 798, 643 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. App. 2001), does not apply to reconfinement after revocation of extended supervision, State v.

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,