On Point: i. Remedy, illegal sentence

State v. Singh, 2021AP1111-CR, 8/18/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Singh challenges his 2005 conviction for OWI, first offense. He first asks for a writ of coram nobis vacating the conviction. Alternatively, he asks that his conviction be vacated or amended under State v. Forrett, 2022 WI 37, 401 Wis. 2d 678, 974 N.W.2d 422, which held that an OWI penalty cannot be increased because of a prior revocation stemming from a refusal to submit a warrantless blood draw.

State v. Christopher W. LeBlanc, 2020AP62-CR, District 2, 7/30/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

If a sentencing court imposes an excessive term of initial confinement (IC) or extended supervision (ES) when sentencing a defendant under Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS), the defendant “is entitled to a new sentencing hearing as a matter of law unless the nonexcessive term of IC or ES is at the maximum, in which case the court has the discretion to commute the excessive component to the maximum term pursuant to Wis. Stat. §973.13 (2019-20) without holding a new sentencing hearing.” (¶1).

State v. Caleb J. Hawley, 2018AP1601-CR, District 4, 3/28/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The judge who sentenced Hawley after revocation of probation stayed the sentence and ordered it to start some 14 months down the road, when Hawley would finished serving the 18 months of conditional jail time ordered in a different case. That stay was illegal, and the remedy is resentencing—not, as Hawley argues, credit for the time he was in custody since the day of his sentencing after revocation.

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. Frederick W. Prager, 2005 WI App 95
For Prager: Daniel P. Fay

Issue: Whether, six days after original sentencing and imposition of probation, the State’s proffered new factor (that defendant had quitclaimed the jointly owned farm to his wife) supported a modification to an active prison term.

Holding: Although the term of probation was premised in part on the economic hardship that defendant’s wife would suffer if he were sentenced to prison (¶¶4,

State v. Brandon L. Mason, 2004 WI App 176
For Dawson: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where the term of initial confinement exceeds the permissible maximum, based on the rule that this term may not exceed 75% of the total sentence, the error is not harmless even though the term is less than the maximum that could have been imposed had the maximum sentence been given;

State v. Timothy J. Helm, 2002 WI App 154, PFR filed 6/11/02

Issue: Whether resentencing, to correct an illegal sentence, violated double jeopardy because it resulted in an increase in the original sentence.

Holding: On sentence after revocation, the trial court reimposed probation on one of the counts; this was an unauthorized disposition which the trial court properly corrected by subsequently resentencing to an active term of imprisonment on that count.