On Point: 2. Presentence Report

State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265
For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee App
Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶31. Likewise, we agree with the Criminal Penalties Study Committee that the judiciary must address the increased responsibility placed upon the sentencing court in light of truth-in-sentencing.

State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04
For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Because the “presentence investigation was not part of the accusatory stage of a criminal proceeding”; and because the PSR “interview was routine and was not conducted while Jimmie’s jeopardy was still in doubt, Jimmie, “unlike the defendant in Estelle,

State v. Joshua L. Howland, 2003 WI App 104
For Howland: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶32. We must also note that the inappropriate nature of the contact between the district attorney’s office and the Division of Community Corrections borders on ex parte communications. Our supreme court has acknowledged the importance of the PSI to the sentencing process. State v.

State v. Randy D. Stafford, 2003 WI App 138
For Stafford: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding: A mental health professional whose assessment of the sexual assault defendant was incorporated into the presentence report and cited at length by the sentencing judge and who had, unbeknownst to the defense, treated the victim for the six months prior to the assessment, had a conflict of interest that amounted to a new factor requiring resentencing.

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Requiring any defendant to demonstrate that the marital relationship actually influenced the writer’s impressions and recommendations would present an insurmountable hurdle to any defendant attempting to challenge a PSI. The reasons for an agent’s impression may operate at a subjective level of which the report’s author is unaware.

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Our supreme court has acknowledged the importance of the PSI to the sentencing process. See State v. McQuay, 154 Wis.2d 116, 130-31, 452 N.W.2d 377, 383 (1990). The integrity of the sentencing process demands that the report be accurate,

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Suchocki claims that his due process right to a fair sentencing hearing was violated. Accordingly, he must demonstrate both bias in the PSI writer and that the sentencing process was prejudiced by such bias. See State v. Coulthard,

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

The use of a PSI is a matter within the court’s discretion. The court has discretion to order a PSI and to determine the extent to which it will rely upon the information in the PSI. State v. Skaff,

State ex rel. Hill v. Zimmerman, 196 Wis. 2d 419, 538 N.W.2d 608 (Ct. App. 1995)

Issue/Holding:

Section 972.15(2), Stats., provides, “When a presentence investigation report has been received the judge shall disclose the contents of the report to the defendant’s attorney … prior to sentencing.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, before sentencing, a defendant has an absolute right to obtain the presentence report. In such a setting,