Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Reconfinement need not review sentence

By: dmc-admin//November 9, 2005//

Reconfinement need not review sentence

By: dmc-admin//November 9, 2005//

Listen to this article

When a court reconfines a defendant after revocation of extended supervision, it need not review the original sentencing transcript or presentence investigation, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held on Nov. 2.

In 2001, Brandon E. Jones pleaded guilty to one count of delivery of less than 500 grams of marijuana, and was sentenced to 14 months of initial confinement, followed by 24 months of extended supervision.

Jones completed the confinement portion of his bifurcated sentence, but had his extended supervision revoked.

The reconfinement hearing was held before Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Timothy G. Dugan (Dugan was not the judge who originally sentenced Jones).

What the court held

Case: State of Wisconsin v. Brandon E. Jones, No. 2005AP18-CR.

Issue: When a court reconfines a defendant after revocation of supervised release, is the court required to review the original sentencing transcript and presentence investigation?

Holding: No. Although a court must do so when sentence was originally withheld, and the defendant placed on probation, the same considerations do not apply when a defendant has already been sentenced.

Counsel: Amelia L. Bizzaro, Milwaukee, for appellant; Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; Sally L. Wellman, Madison, for respondent.

Judge Dugan imposed all 24 months available for reconfinement, referencing the original offense and sentence, the time available for reconfinement, and the DOC recommendation of seven months and six days. Dugan concluded, “It just seems that the defendant is unwilling to be supervised in the community. And unfortunately what that reflects is that if he’s going to rehabilitate himself, it’s going to have to be done in a structured confined setting.”

Jones moved for modification pursuant to Rule 809.30, claiming that the court failed to set forth sufficient reasoning for the length of reconfinement and failed to review the sentencing transcript and presentence investigation report. Judge John Siefert denied the motion, and Jones appealed.

The court of appeals affirmed in a decision by Judge Harry G. Snyder.

Although the court rejected the State’s argument — that a judge need not iterate any of the required sentencing factors at a reconfinement hearing — the court concluded that the circuit court provided a sufficient rationale for its reconfinement sentence.

The court wrote, “The circuit court connected the DOC report of Jones’s ‘abysmal’ conduct while on extended supervision to the court’s conclusion that Jones continued to need rehabilitation. The court specifically referenced Jones’s extended supervision violations, which are too numerous to list here, but include: consumption of a substance he knew to be marijuana; failing to comply with the Wisconsin Sex Offender Registry; failing to attend sex offender treatment; absconding from supervision; operating an automobile without a valid driver’s license; engaging in sexual relationships without his agent’s permission; and unsupervised contact with minors. The court stated that Jones’s record of violations while on extended supervision indicated that he was ‘unwilling to be supervised in the community.’ Accordingly, the court concluded that Jones’s rehabilitation would have to occur in a ‘structured confined setting.’ From this, we can reasonably infer that the court considered the most important sentencing factors to be the gravity of Jones’s offenses and his character.”

Related Links

Wisconsin Court System

Related Article

Case Analysis

The court then rejected Jones’ argument that the circuit court was required to review the original sentencing transcript and presentence investigation, distinguishing State v. Reynolds, 2002 WI App 15, 249 Wis.2d 798, 643 N.W.2d 165, as follows: “Reynolds holds that where the ‘record does not reflect the sentencing judge’s awareness of the information in the presentence investigation report, and of the factors the trial judge found significant in … the withholding of sentence, resentencing is appropriate.’ We conclude that Reynolds is not applicable here because of a significant and meaningful difference in the procedural background. In Reynolds, the circuit court withheld sentence and placed Reynolds on probation; a different judge imposed sentence for the first time after revocation of Reynolds’s probation. We conclude that Reynolds is not sufficiently analogous to the case at hand and reject Jones’s arguments to the contrary (cites omitted)(emphasis in original).”

Accordingly, the court affirmed the reconfinement order.

Click here for Case Analysis.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests