“While [the sentencing judge’s] comments were well-considered in many respects, they reflected no recognition of the trial testimony, the presentence investigation report, or [the trial judge’s] sentencing comments on the severity of the offense. That information was essential to a fair sentencing after revocation. After all, the criminal complaint and information could not convey the evidence subsequently presented at trial. And the probation agent’s memo, prepared for the sentencing after revocation, did little more than summarize the case history; it did not provide the comprehensive study typically offered in a presentence report.”
Reversed and remanded.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
CONCURRING OPINION: Fine, J. “Although I agree with the majority opinion, I write separately to decry what I see as the unfairness of a system of justice that is essentially random, and to suggest a possible solution. … If we are to have a system of justice that is fair and not random we must, in my view and although I have not been a supporter of sentencing guidelines in the past, install some system that will result in similar sentences for defendants with similar levels of culpability and recidivism potential. Further, and most important in my view, and I have written about this many, many times, we must eliminate plea bargaining. Plea bargaining permits expediency to trump justice; plea bargaining tramples fairness for the victim and, often, for the defendant.”
Dist I, Milwaukee County, Konkol, J., Schudson, J.
For Appellant: Peter M. Koneazny, Milwaukee
For Respondent: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; Shunette T. Campbell, Madison