973.125 Notice of lifetime supervision for serious sex offenders.
973.13 Excessive sentence, errors cured.
973.135 Courts to report convictions to the state superintendent of public instruction.
973.14 Sentence to house of correction.
973.15 Sentence, terms, escapes.
973.17 Judgment against a corporation or limited liability company.
973.18 Notice of rights to appeal and representation.
973.19 Motion to modify sentence.
Ch. 973 Cross-reference
Cross-reference: See definitions in s.
967.02.
973.01
973.01
Bifurcated sentence of imprisonment and extended supervision. 973.01(1)
(1)
Bifurcated sentence required. Except as provided in
sub. (3), whenever a court sentences a person to imprisonment in the Wisconsin state prisons for a felony committed on or after December 31, 1999, the court shall impose a bifurcated sentence that consists of a term of confinement in prison followed by a term of extended supervision under
s. 302.113.
973.01(2)
(2) Structure of bifurcated sentences. The court shall ensure that a bifurcated sentence imposed under
sub. (1) complies with all of the following:
973.01(2)(a)
(a)
Total length of bifurcated sentence. Except as provided in
par. (c), the total length of the bifurcated sentence may not exceed the maximum period of imprisonment for the felony.
973.01(2)(b)
(b)
Imprisonment portion of bifurcated sentence. The portion of the bifurcated sentence that imposes a term of confinement in prison may not be less than one year, subject to any minimum sentence prescribed for the felony, and, except as provided in
par. (c), may not exceed whichever of the following is applicable:
973.01(2)(b)1.
1. For a Class B felony, the term of confinement in prison may not exceed 40 years.
973.01(2)(b)2.
2. For a Class BC felony, the term of confinement in prison may not exceed 20 years.
973.01(2)(b)3.
3. For a Class C felony, the term of confinement in prison may not exceed 10 years.
973.01(2)(b)4.
4. For a Class D felony, the term of confinement in prison may not exceed 5 years.
973.01(2)(b)5.
5. For a Class E felony, the term of confinement in prison may not exceed 2 years.
973.01(2)(b)6.
6. For any felony other than a felony specified in
subds. 1. to
5., the term of confinement in prison may not exceed 75% of the total length of the bifurcated sentence.
973.01(2)(c)
(c)
Penalty enhancement. The maximum term of confinement in prison specified in
par. (b) may be increased by any applicable penalty enhancement. If the maximum term of confinement in prison specified in
par. (b) is increased under this paragraph, the total length of the bifurcated sentence that may be imposed is increased by the same amount.
973.01(2)(d)
(d)
Minimum term of extended supervision. The term of extended supervision that follows the term of confinement in prison may not be less than 25% of the length of the term of confinement in prison imposed under
par. (b).
973.01(3)
(3) Not applicable to life sentences. If a person is being sentenced for a felony that is punishable by life imprisonment, he or she is not subject to this section but shall be sentenced under
s. 973.014 (1g).
973.01(3m)
(3m) Challenge incarceration program eligibility. When imposing a bifurcated sentence under this section on a person convicted of a crime other than a crime specified in
ch. 940 or
s. 948.02,
948.025,
948.03,
948.05,
948.055,
948.06,
948.07,
948.08 or
948.095, the court shall, as part of the exercise of its sentencing discretion, decide whether the person being sentenced is eligible or ineligible for the challenge incarceration program under
s. 302.045 during the term of confinement in prison portion of the bifurcated sentence.
973.01(4)
(4) No good time; extension or reduction of term of imprisonment. A person sentenced to a bifurcated sentence under
sub. (1) shall serve the term of confinement in prison portion of the sentence without reduction for good behavior. The term of confinement in prison portion is subject to extension under
s. 302.113 (3) and, if applicable, to reduction under
s. 302.045 (3m).
973.01(5)
(5) extended supervision conditions. Whenever the court imposes a bifurcated sentence under
sub. (1), the court may impose conditions upon the term of extended supervision.
973.01(6)
(6) No parole. A person serving a bifurcated sentence imposed under
sub. (1) is not eligible for release on parole.
973.01(7)
(7) No discharge. The department of corrections may not discharge a person who is serving a bifurcated sentence from custody, control and supervision until the person has served the entire bifurcated sentence.
973.01(8)(a)(a) When a court imposes a bifurcated sentence under this section, it shall explain, orally and in writing, all of the following to the person being sentenced:
973.01(8)(a)2.
2. The amount of time the person will serve in prison under the term of confinement in prison portion of the sentence.
973.01(8)(a)3.
3. The amount of time the person will spend on extended supervision, assuming that the person does not commit any act that results in the extension of the term of confinement in prison under
s. 302.113 (3).
973.01(8)(a)4.
4. That the amount of time the person must actually serve in prison may be extended as provided under
s. 302.113 (3) and that because of extensions under
s. 302.113 (3) the person could serve the entire bifurcated sentence in prison.
973.01(8)(a)5.
5. That the person will be subject to certain conditions while on release to extended supervision, and that violation of any of those conditions may result in the person being returned to prison, as provided under
s. 302.113 (9).
973.01(8)(am)
(am) If the court provides under
sub. (3m) that the person is eligible for the challenge incarceration program, the court shall also inform the person of the provisions of
s. 302.045 (3m).
973.01(8)(b)
(b) The court's explanation under
par. (a) 3. of a person's potential period of extended supervision does not create a right to a minimum period of extended supervision.
973.01 History
History: 1997 a. 283.
973.01 Annotation
Truth-In-Sentencing Comes to Wisconsin. Brennan & Latorraca. Wis. Law. June 2000.
973.013
973.013
Indeterminate sentence; Wisconsin state prisons. 973.013(1)(a)(a) If imprisonment in the Wisconsin state prisons for a term of years is imposed, the court may fix a term less than the prescribed maximum. The form of such sentence shall be substantially as follows: "You are hereby sentenced to the Wisconsin state prisons for an indeterminate term of not more than .... (the maximum as fixed by the court) years."
973.013(1)(b)
(b) Except as provided in
s. 973.01, the sentence shall have the effect of a sentence at hard labor for the maximum term fixed by the court, subject to the power of actual release from confinement by parole by the department or by pardon as provided by law. If a person is sentenced for a definite time for an offense for which the person may be sentenced under this section, the person is in legal effect sentenced as required by this section, said definite time being the maximum period. A defendant convicted of a crime for which the minimum penalty is life shall be sentenced for life.
973.013(2)
(2) Upon the recommendation of the department, the governor may, without the procedure required by
ch. 304, discharge absolutely, or upon such conditions and restrictions and under such limitation as the governor thinks proper, any inmate committed to the Wisconsin state prisons after he or she has served the minimum term of punishment prescribed by law for the offense for which he or she was sentenced, except that if the term was life imprisonment, 5 years must elapse after release on parole or extended supervision before such a recommendation can be made to the governor. The discharge has the effect of an absolute or conditional pardon, respectively.
973.013(3)
(3) Female persons convicted of a felony may be committed to the Taycheedah correctional institution unless they are subject to
sub. (3m).
973.013(3m)
(3m) If a person who has not attained the age of 16 years is sentenced to the Wisconsin state prisons, the department of corrections shall place the person at a secured juvenile correctional facility or a secured child caring institution, unless the department of corrections determines that placement in an institution under
s. 302.01 is appropriate based on the person's prior record of adjustment in a correctional setting, if any; the person's present and potential vocational and educational needs, interests and abilities; the adequacy and suitability of available facilities; the services and procedures available for treatment of the person within the various institutions; the protection of the public; and any other considerations promulgated by the department of corrections by rule. This subsection does not preclude the department of corrections from designating an adult correctional institution as a reception center for the person and subsequently transferring the person to a secured juvenile correctional facility or a secured child caring institution.
Section 302.11 and
ch. 304 apply to all persons placed in a secured juvenile correctional facility or a secured child caring institution under this subsection.
973.013(4)
(4) If information under
s. 972.15 (2m) has been provided in a presentence investigation report, the court shall consider that information when sentencing the defendant.
973.013 Annotation
The sentencing judge shall state for the record in the presence of the defendant the reasons for selecting the particular sentence imposed or, if the sentencing judge considers it in the interest of the defendant not to state reasons in the presence of the defendant, shall prepare a statement for transmission to the reviewing court as part of the record. McCleary v. State,
49 Wis. 2d 263,
182 N.W.2d 512.
973.013 Annotation
It was not a denial of equal protection to sentence a defendant to 4 years imprisonment although other persons involved, all minors, received lesser or no punishment. State v. Schilz,
50 Wis. 2d 395,
184 N.W.2d 134.
973.013 Annotation
An abuse of discretion, as it relates to sentencing procedures, will be found only if there is no rational basis for the imposition of the sentence or the rationale is not articulated in, or inferable from, the record, or where discretion is exercised on the basis of clearly irrelevant or improper factors. Davis v. State,
52 Wis. 2d 697,
190 N.W.2d 890.
973.013 Annotation
The seriousness of the offense is a proper criterion for imposing a maximum sentence. While warehousing dangerous individuals is not the sole purpose for imposing long prison terms, it is a legitimate factor for a trial court to consider. Bastian v. State,
54 Wis. 2d 240,
194 N.W.2d 687.
973.013 Annotation
The trial court's increase of the defendant's sentence based solely on "reflection" did not constitute a valid basis for modification of a sentence. There was no "new factor" justifying a more severe sentence, a prerequisite for sentence reevaluation. Scott v. State,
64 Wis. 2d 54,
218 N.W.2d 350.
973.013 Annotation
Sentence of the maximum 5 years in prison is reduced to reflect 89 days of a total 118 days of pretrial incarceration during which time defendant was unable to raise bail because of indigency. Wilkins v. State,
66 Wis. 2d 628,
225 N.W.2d 492.
973.013 Annotation
A defendant's change in attitude or rehabilitative progress subsequent to sentencing is a factor to be considered in determining parole but is not a proper consideration upon which a trial court might base a reduction of sentence. State v. Wuensch,
69 Wis. 2d 467,
230 N.W.2d 665.
973.013 Annotation
The trial court's modification and making concurrent of certain of defendant's sentences for burglary was proper on the basis that subsequent to imposition of sentence the supreme court determined in Edelman v. State,
62 Wis. 2d 613, that a prison sentence has a minimum parole eligibility of one-year, because at the original sentencing hearing, the state emphasized eligibility for "instant parole" as a reason for the imposition of a substantial sentence on the first count and consecutive sentences on the other counts. Kutchera v. State,
69 Wis. 2d 534,
230 N.W.2d 750.
973.013 Annotation
Although evidence concerning the incidents of sexual activity abroad was relevant as to defendant's character and admissible at the sentencing hearing, the trial court abused its discretion by punishing defendant not only for the crime of which he stood convicted, but for the events that occurred outside Wisconsin, as indicated by the fact that both sentencing hearings were devoted largely to these foreign incidents. Rosado v. State,
70 Wis. 2d 280,
234 N.W.2d 69.
973.013 Annotation
The trial court exceeded jurisdiction by specifying conditions of incarceration. State v. Gibbons,
71 Wis. 2d 94,
237 N.W.2d 33.
973.013 Annotation
A plea bargain agreement by law enforcement officials not to reveal relevant and pertinent information to the sentencing judge was unenforceable as being against public policy. Grant v. State,
73 Wis. 2d 441,
243 N.W.2d 186.
973.013 Annotation
Chronic offenses of theft by fraud by promising to marry several persons provided a rational basis for a lengthy sentence. Lambert v. State,
73 Wis. 2d 590,
243 N.W.2d 524.
973.013 Annotation
A 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.
973.013 Annotation
A defendant's refusal to name accomplices was properly considered by the sentencing judge. Because the defendant had pleaded guilty to the crime, self-incrimination would not have resulted from the requested cooperation. Holmes v. State,
76 Wis. 2d 259,
251 N.W.2d 56.
973.013 Annotation
Courts may correct formal or clerical errors or an illegal sentence at any time. Krueger v. State,
86 Wis. 2d 435,
272 N.W.2d 847 (1979).
973.013 Annotation
The double jeopardy clause did not bar prosecution of a charge after it was considered as evidence of character in sentencing the defendant on a prior unrelated conviction. State v. Jackson,
110 Wis. 2d 548,
329 N.W.2d 182 (1983).
973.013 Annotation
Increasing a sentence sentence following the vacation of plea bargained no contest pea did not violate due process. The test for judicial vindictiveness is discussed. State v. Stubbendick,
110 Wis. 2d 693,
329 N.W.2d 399 (1983).
973.013 Annotation
A reduction in the maximum statutory penalty for an offense is not a "new factor" justifying a postconviction motion to modify the sentence. State v. Hegwood,
113 Wis. 2d 544,
335 N.W.2d 399 (1983).
973.013 Annotation
An 80-year sentence for a first-time sexual offender was not an abuse of discretion. State v. Curbello-Rodriguez,
119 Wis. 2d 414,
351 N.W.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1984).
973.013 Annotation
An unambiguous sentence pronounced orally and recorded in the sentencing transcript controls over the written judgment of conviction. State v. Perry,
136 Wis. 2d 92,
401 N.W.2d 748 (1987).
973.013 Annotation
The sentencing court does not abuse its discretion in considering a victim's statements and recommendations. State v. Johnson,
158 Wis. 2d 458,
463 N.W.2d 352 (Ct. App. 1990).
973.013 Annotation
The primary factors to be considered in exercising discretion in sentencing are gravity of offense, rehabilitative needs of defendant and protection of public. State v. Paske,
163 Wis. 2d 52,
471 N.W.2d 55 (1991).
973.013 Annotation
Due process does not require the presence of counsel at a presentence investigation interview of the defendant. State v. Perez,
170 Wis. 2d 130,
487 N.W.2d 630 (Ct. App. 1992).
973.013 Annotation
Whether a particular factor will be considered as a mitigating or aggravating factor will depend on the particular defendant and case. State v. Thompson,
172 Wis. 2d 257,
493 N.W.2d 729 (Ct. App. 1992).
973.013 Annotation
The trial court's possible consideration at sentencing of the defendant's culpability in a more serious offense although the jury convicted on a lesser included offense was not error. State v. Marhal,
172 Wis. 2d 491,
493 N.W.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1992). See also State v. Bobbitt,
178 Wis. 2d 11,
503 N.W.2d 11 (Ct. App. 1993).
973.013 Annotation
No specific burden of proof is imposed as to read-in offenses that bear upon sentencing; all sentencing is under the standard for judicial discretion. State v. Hubert,
181 Wis. 2d 333,
510 N.W.2d 799 (Ct. App. 1993).
973.013 Annotation
A sentencing court may consider a defendant's religious beliefs and practices only if a reliable nexus exists between the defendant's criminal conduct and those beliefs and practices. State v. Fuerst,
181 Wis. 2d 903,
512 N.W.2d 243 (Ct. App. 1994).
973.013 Annotation
If an oral pronouncement is ambiguous, it is proper to look to the written judgment to ascertain a court's intent in sentencing. An omission in the oral pronouncement can create an ambiguity. State v. Lipke,
186 Wis. 2d 358,
521 N.W.2d 444 (Ct. App. 1994).
973.013 Annotation
Under s. 973.013, 1991 stats., [now sub. (1)], life imprisonment without parole is not an option. State v. Setagord,
187 Wis. 2d 339,
523 N.W.2d 124 (Ct. App. 1994).
973.013 Annotation
A trial court in exercising sentencing discretion is not prohibited from entertaining general predispositions based on experience, but the judge's predispositions may never be so specific as to ignore the particular circumstances of the individual offender. State v. Ogden,
199 Wis. 2d 566,
544 N.W.2d 574 (1996).
973.013 Annotation
A defendant who requests resentencing must show specific information was inaccurate and that the court relied on it. When facts stated in a presentence report are not challenged at sentencing, the sentencing judge may appropriately consider them. State v. Mosley,
201 Wis. 2d 36,
547 N.W.2d 806 (Ct. App. 1996).
973.013 Annotation
A court must consider 3 primary factors in exercising discretion in sentencing: (1) the gravity of the offense; (2) the character of the offender; and (3) the need to protect the public. Remorse is an additional factor that may be considered. State v. Rodgers,
203 Wis. 2d 83,
552 N.W.2d 123 (Ct. App. 1996). For enumeration of other additional factors that may be considered, see, State v. Barnes,
203 Wis. 2d 132,
552 N.W.2d 857 (Ct. App. 1996).
973.013 Annotation
A defendant is automatically prejudiced when the prosecutor materially and substantially breaches a plea agreement. New sentencing is required. State v. Smith,
207 Wis. 2d 259,
558 N.W.2d 379 (1997).
973.013 Annotation
When resentencing a defendant, a court should consider all information relevant about a defendant, including information not existing or not known when sentence was first passed. State v. Carter,
208 Wis. 2d 142,
560 N.W.2d 256 (1997).
973.013 Annotation
A marital relationship between the prosecutor of a case and the presentence repot writer is sufficient to draw the objectivity of the report into question. It was error not to strike such a report. State v. Suchocki,
208 Wis. 2d 509,
561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997).
973.013 Annotation
Rehabilitation may not be considered as a "new factor" for purposes of modifying an already imposed sentence. State v. Kluck,
210 Wis. 2d 1,
563 N.W.2d 468 (1997).
973.013 Annotation
A new factor justifying sentence modification is a fact that is highly relevant but not known by the judge at the time of sentencing because it did not exist or was unknowingly overlooked. The new factor must operate to frustrate the sentencing court's original intent. State v. Johnson,
210 Wis. 2d 197,
565 N.W.2d 191 (Ct. App. 1997).
