Due Process Violation

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Donavinn D. Coffee

Case No.: 2020 WI 1

Focus: Due Process Violation

This is a review of a per curiam decision of the court of appeals, State v. Coffee, No. 2017AP2292-CR, unpublished slip. op. (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2018), affirming the Milwaukee County circuit court’s judgment of conviction and order denying Donavinn D. Coffee’s (“Coffee”) postconviction motion for resentencing. Coffee argues that the circuit court violated his due process rights because the circuit court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing, and that error was not harmless. Neither Coffee nor his counsel objected to the inaccurate information at the sentencing hearing. Rather, Coffee’s first objection to the inaccurate information was in his postconviction motion. The postconviction court concluded that: (1) the State introduced inaccurate information at the sentencing hearing; and (2) the circuit court actually relied on the inaccurate information; but (3) the error was harmless. Thus, the postconviction court denied Coffee’s motion for resentencing. The court of appeals affirmed, but not on the merits of Coffee’s inaccurate information at sentencing claim. Instead, the court of appeals concluded that Coffee forfeited his claim because he failed to object at the sentencing hearing. We now affirm, but we resolve this case on the merits.

A defendant has a constitutional due process right to be sentenced upon accurate information. State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, ¶9, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1. Coffee’s constitutional due process right was violated. Indeed, both Coffee and the State agree that the circuit court actually relied on inaccurate information when it sentenced Coffee. Accordingly, the issues before this court are: (1) whether Coffee forfeited his ability to later challenge the inaccurate information because he failed to object at the sentencing hearing; and, (2) if Coffee did not forfeit his claim, whether the circuit court’s reliance on the inaccurate information at sentencing was harmless error.

We conclude that the forfeiture rule does not apply to previously unknown, inaccurate information first raised by the State at sentencing. Rather, a postconviction motion is also a timely manner in which to bring that claim. Accordingly, we conclude that Coffee did not forfeit his ability to challenge the inaccurate information at his sentencing. We nonetheless conclude that the circuit court’s reliance on inaccurate information at Coffee’s sentencing was harmless error. Thus, we affirm the court of appeals.

Affirmed

Concur: KELLY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joined ¶¶59-63.

Dissent: ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY and DALLET, JJ., joined.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.