On Point: 2. Presentence Report

State v. Melton, 2013 WI 65, reversing published court of appeals decision; case activity; opinion by Justice Prosser; concurrence by Justice Ziegler and joined by Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley

Melton pled guilty to 2 felonies, and the court ordered a PSI for sentencing.  Turns out the PSI contained errors (info re uncharged offenses), so the court ordered a 2nd PSI and the destruction of the 1st PSI.  

In the Matter of State v. Michael Buchanan: State ex rel. Office of State Public Defender v. Wis. Court of Appeals, District IV, 2013 WI 31, on review of petition for supervisory writ; case activity

In an important decision for all lawyers who handle criminal cases in the state appellate courts, the supreme court affirms that counsel for the defendant and the state do not need permission from a court to use,

on review of published decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether a circuit court has inherent authority to order destruction of a presentence investigation report (albeit under “unique facts”), after sentencing and entry of judgment.

And as to those unique facts? The PSI at issue contained information about uncharged offenses that the trial court determined “would be prejudicial to Melton as he went through the …

State v. Brandon M. Melton, 2012 WI App 95, WSC review granted 11/14/12(recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; case activity

Under “unique facts,” the circuit court possessed inherent authority to order destruction of a PSI: the PSI contained uncharged offenses irrelevant to sentencing whose inclusion was improper under DOC rules; and, though sealed, it coexisted with a second PSI in the court file:

¶22      The circuit court did not articulate any public policy reasons for rejecting Melton’s request to destroy the entire PSI report,

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sterling: Dianne M. Erickson; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Charging Decision – Judicial Involvement
Increase in the charge, following trial judge’s veiled suggestion to the prosecutor that such an increase would be appropriate, wasn’t occasioned by judicial interference with prosecutorial discretion, ¶¶16-22.

Initially charged with first-degree reckless injury, Sterling was ultimately convicted on an amended charge of attempted first-degree intentional homicide.

State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding: The rule of State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997) (conflict of interest where PSI author married to defendant’s prosecutor) does not extend to situation where PSI author is married to another probation agent and both are jointly supervising the defendant:

¶5       We do not believe that the same inherent bias exists in the relationship between two supervising probation agents. 

State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding: Thexton wasn’t entitled to Miranda warnings “at the time the PSI was being prepared”:

¶8        Thexton also claims that Streekstra violated his Fifth Amendment rights when he interviewed him during the investigation.  Thexton claims that Streekstra used the prior PSI as a basis for questioning him,

State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding: The agent’s use of a prior PSI during the interview of defendant for the current case did not trigger any additional right to counsel:

¶10      Thexton further argues that his right to counsel was violated because he was unable to consult with his attorney regarding the use of the prior PSI during the interview.

State v. Germaine M. Taylor, 2006 WI 22, affirming unpublished summary order
For Taylor: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶28 In terms of the length of his sentence, Taylor argues that there appeared to be no “starting point” for the court of some very low period of confinement, or even the period of confinement recommended by the PSI writer. We cannot agree.

State v. James L. Montroy, 2005  WI App 230
For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn

Issue/Holding:

¶14    Montroy also argues a new PSI is necessary because the inaccurate information will continue to prejudice him in the future. He cites Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 328.27 (Nov. 2002) for examples of the various uses for a PSI beyond sentencing. However, Wis. Stat. § 973.08(2) requires that the transcript of Montroy’s sentencing hearing be part of his record.