On Point: 2. Oral Pronouncement vs. JOC

State v. B.M., 2021AP501-FT, 12/14/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A court found “Brandon” delinquent and placed him on juvenile supervision. It said that if the State wanted electronic monitoring it could “schedule further proceedings and we’ll take that up.” But then the written order directed that he “shall participate in the electronic monitoring program as deemed appropriate by the assigned juvenile worker for any violation of supervision.”

State v. Charles A. McIntyre, 2014AP800-CR, District 3, 12/30/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

When pronouncing sentence in McIntyre’s case the circuit court repeatedly interchanged “consecutive” and “concurrent” when referring to Count One (of five). (¶¶2-5). Thus, despite the court’s several attempts at clarification during the sentencing hearing, the sentence imposed on that count was ambiguous because it was “undeniably confusing and capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two different ways.” (¶11). Nonetheless, the court’s intent was clear, so it properly amended the judgment post-sentencing to clarify that Count One was consecutive.

State v. Craig C. Meier, 2013AP2863-CR, District 4, 7/17/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The answer matters: If the pronouncement of sentence is ambiguous the court could “clarify[] and “reimpose[]” the sentences it originally intended, Krueger v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 435, 442-43, 272 N.W.2d 847 (1979); if the sentence is illegal, it must be commuted to the lawful maximum, § 973.13. In this case the court of appeals holds the circuit court’s initial pronouncement of sentences in this case was ambiguous, so it affirms the circuit court’s “correction” of the sentences to reflect the sentences the court intended to impose.

State v. Seneca Joseph Boykin, 2009AP2499-CR, District 2, 9/22/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Boykin: Mark A. Schoenfeldt; BiC; Resp.

A probation agent may not evade the warrant requirement by acting as a “stalking horse” for the police in conducting a warrantless search of a probationer’s residence, ¶10. In this instance, probation officer Navis, acting on reliable information that Boykin was using and selling cocaine,

State v. Carla L. Oglesby, 2006 WI App 95
For Oglesby: Timothy T. Kay

Issue/Holding:

¶15      … [T]he trial court’s oral pronouncement imposed a two-year term of probation in 2004CM401. Despite this clear and unequivocal statement, the judgment of conviction recited a probation term of six years.

¶16      When an unambiguous oral pronouncement at sentencing conflicts with an equally unambiguous pronouncement in the judgment of conviction,

State v. Carla L. Oglesby, 2006 WI App 95
For Oglesby: Timothy T. Kay

Issue/Holding: The test for statutory construction – whether the language is capable of being understood by reasonably informed persons in different ways – applies to determination of a sentencing court’s intent; where the parties staked out different sentencing positions but the sentencing court was silent as to whether multiple terms were to be concurrent or consecutive,

State v. Edward W. Fisher, 2005 WI App 175
For Fisher: Eileen Miller Carter

Issue/Holding: 

¶16            Fisher’s contentions grossly misrepresent the record. Assuming the court’s oral ruling contained some ambiguity, the written judgment of conviction and the conditions of extended supervision are crystal clear with respect to what conduct the conditions cover. See Jackson v. Gray, 212 Wis. 2d 436,

State v. Gabriel L. Ortiz, 2001 WI App 215
For Ortiz: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: “(W)here there is conflict between a trial court’s oral pronouncement and a written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” ¶27, citing State v. Perry, 136 Wis. 2d 92, 114, 401 N.W.2d 748 (1987). This rule is applicable even though “the trial court’s oral pronouncement came after, rather than before,

State v. Robert John Prihoda, 2000 WI 123, 239 Wis. 2d 244, 618 N.W.2d 857, affirming unpublished decision
For Prihoda: Timothy T. Kay

Issue1: “(W)hether the office of the clerk of circuit court may correct a clerical error in the sentence portion of a written judgment of conviction without prior court approval.” ¶3.

Holding1: ¶5:

(W)e conclude that the office of the clerk of circuit court does not have the authority to correct a clerical error in the sentence portion of a written judgment of conviction.

State v. Tommy Lo, 228 Wis. 2d 531, 599 N.W.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Lo: Margarita Van Nuland

Issue/Holding: “When there is a conflict between the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and a written judgment of conviction, the oral pronouncement controls.”