972.15(6)
(6) The presentence investigation report and any information contained in it or upon which it is based may be used by any of the following persons in any evaluation, examination, referral, hearing, trial, postcommitment relief proceeding, appeal, or other proceeding under
ch. 980:
972.15(6)(b)
(b) The department of health and family services.
972.15(6)(c)
(c) The person who is the subject of the presentence investigation report, his or her attorney, or an agent or employee of the attorney.
972.15(6)(d)
(d) The attorney representing the state or an agent or employee of the attorney.
972.15(6)(e)
(e) A licensed physician, licensed psychologist, or other mental health professional who is examining the subject of the presentence investigation report.
972.15(6)(f)
(f) The court and, if applicable, the jury hearing the case.
972.15 Annotation
The defendant was not denied due process because the trial judge refused to order a psychiatric examination and have a psychiatric evaluation included in the presentence report. Hanson v. State,
48 Wis. 2d 203,
179 N.W.2d 909 (1970).
972.15 Annotation
It is not error for the court to fail to order a presentence investigation, especially when the record contains much information as to the defendant's background and criminal record. State v. Schilz,
50 Wis. 2d 395,
184 N.W.2d 134 (1971).
972.15 Annotation
Section 48.78 does not prevent a judge from examining DHSS records. Restrictive rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing procedures. Hammill v. State,
52 Wis. 2d 118,
187 N.W.2d 792 (1971).
972.15 Annotation
Refusal to accept a recommendation of probation does not amount to an abuse of discretion if the evidence justifies a severe sentence. State v. Burgher,
53 Wis. 2d 452,
192 N.W.2d 869 (1972).
972.15 Annotation
If a presentence report is used by the trial court, it must be part of the record. Its absence is not error if the defendant and counsel saw the report and had a chance to correct it and if counsel approved the record without moving for its inclusion. Chambers v. State,
54 Wis. 2d 460,
195 N.W.2d 477 (1972).
972.15 Annotation
It is error for the sentencing court to consider pre-Gault,
387 U.S. 1, juvenile adjudications where juveniles were denied counsel, even to the extent of showing a pattern of conduct. Stockwell v. State,
59 Wis. 2d 21,
207 N.W.2d 883 (1973).
972.15 Annotation
A presentence report, consisting of information concerning the defendant's personality, social circumstances, and general pattern of behavior and a section entitled "Agent's Impressions" contained neither biased nor incompetent material as such reports are not limited to evidence that is admissible in court, and the defendant's report, although recommending imposition of a maximum term, contained material both favorable and unfavorable as to defendant's general pattern of behavior. State v. Jackson,
69 Wis. 2d 266,
230 N.W.2d 832 (1975).
972.15 Annotation
Consideration by the trial court of a presentence report prior to defendant's plea of guilty, in violation of sub. (1), constituted at most harmless error, since the evil the statute is designed to prevent—receipt by the judge of prejudicial information while still considering the defendant's guilt or innocence or presiding over a jury trial—cannot arise in the context of a guilty plea, especially when the trial court had already assured itself of the voluntariness of the plea and the factual basis for the crime. Rosado v. State,
70 Wis. 2d 280,
234 N.W.2d 69 (1975).
972.15 Annotation
The sentencing judge does not deny due process by considering pending criminal charges in determining a sentence. The scope of judicial inquiry prior to sentencing is discussed. Handel v. State,
74 Wis. 2d 699,
247 N.W.2d 711 (1976).
972.15 Annotation
Information gathered in the course of a presentence investigation may not be revealed at a trial following withdrawal of guilty plea. State v. Crowell,
149 Wis. 2d 859,
440 N.W.2d 348 (1989).
972.15 Annotation
Defendants appearing with or without counsel have a due process right to read the presentence investigation report prior to sentencing. State v. Skaff,
152 Wis. 2d 48,
447 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1989).
972.15 Annotation
A defendant challenging a sentence on due process grounds based upon failure to receive a copy of the presentence investigation report is entitled to a hearing only upon a showing that the court had a blanket policy of denial of access and that the policy was specifically applied to defendant, or that before sentencing the defendant personally sought access and was denied it. State v. Flores,
158 Wis. 2d 636,
462 N.W.2d 899 (Ct. App. 1990).
972.15 Annotation
A public defender appointed as postconviction counsel is entitled to the presentence investigation report under s. 967.06. Access may not be restricted under sub. (4). Oliver v. Goulee,
179 Wis. 2d 376,
507 N.W.2d 145 (Ct. App. 1993).
972.15 Annotation
Although sub. (2s) requires a presentence report to include juvenile adjudications that are less than 3 years old, it does not prohibit the inclusion and consideration of adjudications that are older. State v. Crowe,
189 Wis. 2d 72,
525 N.W.2d 291 (Ct. App. 1994).
972.15 Annotation
Sub. (5) does not provide a defendant with a means to obtain his or her presentence report. Access is provided by subs. (2) and (4). State ex rel. Hill v. Zimmerman,
196 Wis. 2d 419,
538 N.W.2d 608 (Ct. App. 1995),
94-1861.
972.15 Annotation
A marital relationship between a case's prosecutor and the presentence report writer was sufficient to draw the objectivity of the report into question. It was error not to strike the report. State v. Suchocki,
208 Wis. 2d 509,
561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997),
96-1712.
972.15 Annotation
The use of presentence reports from the underlying criminal proceeding in a ch. 980 sex offender commitment is not allowed under the sub. (5) provision for use of the reports for care and treatment, but allowing the state's psychologist to use, and allowing the ch. 980 jury to hear, the reports is within the court's discretion under sub. (4). State v. Zanelli,
212 Wis. 2d 358,
569 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1997),
96-2159.
972.15 Annotation
Having disputed relevant portions of the presentence investigation at the sentencing hearing, it was trial counsel's duty to see that the disputes were fully resolved by a proper hearing. Failure to do so constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Anderson,
222 Wis. 2d 403,
588 N.W.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1998),
97-3070.
972.15 Annotation
A mental health professional who conducted a psychological assessment of a defendant convicted of sexual assault, which was incorporated into the presentence investigation report and admitted into evidence at the sentencing hearing, had a conflict of interest due to the fact that she had treated the victim in the case justifying modification of the defendant's sentence. State v. Stafford, 2003 WI App 138,
265 Wis. 2d 886,
667 N.W.2d 370,
02-0544.
972.15 Annotation
This section applies only to court-ordered presentence investigation reports and does not refer to memorandum submitted by a defendant at sentencing nor prevent the use of the memorandum submitted at one trial at a subsequent trial. State v. Greve, 2004 WI 69,
272 Wis. 2d 444,
681 N.W.2d 479,
02-2332.
972.15 Annotation
Under Greve, defense counsel's failure to object to the testimony of the court-ordered presentence investigator constituted deficient performance, but failure to object to the testimony of the defense presentence investigator did not. State v. Jimmie R.R. 2004 WI App 168,
276 Wis. 2d 447,
688 N.W.2d 1,
02-1771.
972.15 Annotation
Insuring the accuracy of the presentence investigation report in the Wisconsin correctional system. 1986 WLR 613.
