Case Title: State v. Christopher Lee Davis

Citation: 2001 WI 136

Docket Number: 2000AP000889-CR

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
2001 WI 136 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
00-0889-CR 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
v. 
Christopher Lee Davis,  
 
Defendant-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
2001 WI App 63 
Reported at:  242 Wis. 2d 344, 626 N.W.2d 5 
(Published) 
OPINION FILED: 
December 27, 2001   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
November 6, 2001   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dodge   
 
JUDGE: 
Daniel W. Klossner   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner the cause was argued 
by Michael R. Klos, assistant attorney general, with whom on the 
brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
For the defendant-respondent there was a brief and oral 
argument by Jane Krueger Smith, Oconto Falls. 
 
 
2001 WI 136 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound 
volume 
of 
the 
official 
reports.   
No.  00-0889-CR  
(L.C. No. 
99 CF 71) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Christopher Lee Davis,  
 
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 27, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed and 
cause remanded. 
 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE.   This is a 
review of a published decision of the court of appeals, State v. 
Davis, 2001 WI App 63, 242 Wis. 2d 344, 626 N.W.2d 5, affirming 
an order of the Circuit Court for Dodge County, Daniel W. 
Klossner, Circuit Court Judge.  The circuit court granted 
defendant Christopher Lee Davis's motion to dismiss the criminal 
case against him with prejudice because the State failed to 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
2 
 
bring the case on for trial within the 120-day time period set 
forth in Wis. Stat. § 971.11(2) (1999-2000).1 
¶2 
The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's 
order, holding that the legislature intended that a circuit 
court have the discretion to dismiss a criminal case with or 
without prejudice when the State fails to bring the criminal 
case on for trial within the 120-day time period set forth in 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(2).   
¶3 
Two questions of law are presented in this case.  
First, does Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) grant a circuit court the 
discretion to dismiss a criminal case with or without prejudice 
when the State fails to bring the criminal case on for trial 
within the 120-day time period set forth in § 971.11(2)?2  
Second, if § 971.11(7) does grant a circuit court the discretion 
to dismiss a criminal case with or without prejudice when the 
State fails to bring the criminal case on for trial within the 
120-day time period set forth in § 971.11(2), did the circuit 
court in the present case properly exercise its discretion in 
dismissing 
the 
criminal 
case 
against 
the 
defendant 
with 
prejudice?  
¶4 
This court decides both these questions of law 
independent of the circuit court and court of appeals, but 
benefiting from their analyses.   
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise indicated. 
2 This case does not involve any constitutional issues and 
the dismissal is prior to the attachment of jeopardy. 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
3 
 
¶5 
We agree with the court of appeals that when a 
criminal case is not brought on for trial within the 120-day 
time period set forth in Wis. Stat. § 971.11(2), a circuit court 
has the discretion under § 971.11(7) to dismiss the criminal 
case with or without prejudice.  We further conclude that the 
circuit court failed to properly exercise its discretion in the 
present case, and we remand the cause to the circuit court to 
exercise its discretion in determining whether the dismissal 
should be with or without prejudice. 
 
I 
 
¶6 
The facts in the present case are undisputed.  On 
March 16, 1999, a criminal complaint was filed in Dodge County 
Circuit Court alleging that Christopher Lee Davis, the defendant 
and an inmate at the Fox Lake Correctional Institution, was 
involved 
in 
a 
conspiracy 
to 
deliver 
marijuana 
at 
the 
correctional institution.  Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.11, 
commonly referred to as the Intrastate Detainer Act,3 the 
defendant himself, not represented by counsel, requested a 
"prompt disposition" of his case.  The defendant's request 
triggered the 120-day time period during which the State was to 
bring the criminal case against the defendant on for trial. 
                                                 
3 This statute has also been referred to as Wisconsin's 
Disposition 
of 
Intrastate 
Detainer 
Act 
under 
a 
previous 
codification.  State v. Fogle, 25 Wis. 2d 257, 260, 130 
N.W.2d 871 (1964).  
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
4 
 
¶7 
The 
district 
attorney's 
office 
received 
the 
defendant's request on March 23, 1999.  Defense counsel was 
appointed for the defendant on April 22, 1999, and the defendant 
was represented throughout the proceedings.  A preliminary 
hearing was scheduled for May 5, 1999, but the defendant waived 
his right to the hearing on a form executed that day.  The 
defendant was arraigned on May 26, 1999, at which time the 
circuit court scheduled the case for a status conference to be 
held on July 19, 1999.  Following the status conference the 
circuit court entered orders on July 22, 1999, after the 
statutory 120-day period to bring the case on for trial had 
expired, scheduling a motion hearing on August 3, 1999, and a 
trial on November 16, 1999.   
¶8 
The State and the defense counsel filed a joint 
request for a continuance on July 28, 1999, so the motion 
hearing was rescheduled for October 18, 1999.  The parties then 
filed a "Stipulation & Recommendation" on September 9, 1999, in 
which the defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count of 
conspiracy to deliver marijuana.  In exchange for a sentence 
recommendation of two years, the defendant agreed to testify 
truthfully in any proceeding involving the delivery of drugs at 
Fox Lake Correctional Institution.  The defendant executed a 
plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form on October 7, 1999, 
and the circuit court scheduled a plea and sentencing hearing 
for January 7, 2000.   
¶9 
However, in a letter to the circuit court dated 
January 3, 2000, defense counsel notified the circuit court that 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
5 
 
it had come to counsel's attention that the defendant had 
requested a prompt disposition of the criminal case against him 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.11 and that the district attorney's 
office had received this request on March 23, 1999.  Defense 
counsel's 
letter 
explained 
that 
the 
request 
for 
prompt 
disposition was not on file with the clerk of courts4 and that 
defense counsel had not received a copy from the district 
attorney.  Defense counsel's letter then asked the circuit court 
to dismiss the criminal case with prejudice on the ground that 
the State failed to bring the case on for trial within the 120-
day time period set forth in § 971.11(2).  One hundred twenty 
days from March 23, 1999, the date on which the district 
attorney's office had received the defendant's request for 
prompt disposition of the case, had elapsed on July 21, 1999.   
¶10 On February 14, 2000, the circuit court held a hearing 
on the defendant's motion to dismiss the case.  The circuit 
court dismissed the case with prejudice, reasoning in part that 
a dismissal without prejudice would not provide any meaningful 
remedy to the defendant.  The court of appeals affirmed the 
circuit court's dismissal order, concluding that the circuit 
court had the discretion to dismiss the criminal case with or 
without prejudice under Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7).  The court of 
appeals also ruled that the circuit court properly exercised its 
discretion in the present case.  
                                                 
4 According to the stamp of the Dodge County Clerk of 
Courts, the request for prompt disposition was filed on April 
12, 1999. 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
6 
 
 
II 
 
¶11 We first consider what kind of dismissal of a criminal 
case is authorized under Wis. Stat. § 971.11: dismissal with 
prejudice or dismissal without prejudice?  Section 971.11(2) 
provides that a district attorney shall bring a criminal case on 
for trial within 120 days after receipt of an accused's request 
for a prompt disposition of the criminal case "subject to s. 
971.10."  Section 971.11(7) provides that if a criminal case is 
not brought on for trial within the 120-day time period set 
forth in § 971.11(2), "the case shall be dismissed."  Section 
971.11(1), (2), and (7) states in relevant part as follows: 
 
(1) Whenever the warden or superintendent receives 
notice of an untried criminal case pending in this 
state against an inmate of a state prison, the warden 
or superintendent shall, at the request of the inmate, 
send by certified mail a written request to the 
district attorney for prompt disposition of the case.  
The request shall state the sentence then being 
served, the date of parole eligibility, if applicable, 
or the date of release to extended supervision, the 
approximate discharge or conditional release date, and 
prior decision relating to parole.  If there has been 
no preliminary examination on the pending case, the 
request shall state whether the inmate waives such 
examination, and, if so, shall be accompanied by a 
written waiver signed by the inmate. 
 
(2) If the crime charged is a felony, the district 
attorney shall either move to dismiss the pending case 
or arrange a date for preliminary examination as soon 
as convenient and notify the warden or superintendent 
of the prison thereof, unless such examination has 
already been held or has been waived.  After the 
preliminary examination or upon waiver thereof, the 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
7 
 
district attorney shall file an information, unless it 
has already been filed, and mail a copy thereof to the 
warden or superintendent for service on the inmate.  
The district attorney shall bring the case on for 
trial within 120 days after receipt of the request 
subject to s. 971.10.   
 
 . . . .http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-
bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=82768&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=971.10&softpage=
Document - JUMPDEST_971.10 
 
(7) If the district attorney moves to dismiss any 
pending case or if it is not brought on for trial 
within 
the 
time 
specified 
in 
sub. 
(2) 
or 
(3) 
http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-
bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=82768&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=971.11%282%29&s
oftpage=Document 
- 
JUMPDEST_971.11(2)http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-
bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=82768&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=971.11%283%29&s
oftpage=Document 
- 
JUMPDEST_971.11(3)the 
case 
shall 
be 
dismissed 
unless 
the 
defendant 
has 
escaped 
or 
otherwise prevented the trial, in which case the 
request for disposition of the case shall be deemed 
withdrawn and of no further legal effect.  Nothing in 
this section prevents a trial after the period 
specified 
in 
http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-
bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=82768&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=971.11%282%29&s
oftpage=Document - JUMPDEST_971.11(2) sub. (2) or (3) if a 
trial commenced within such period terminates in a 
mistrial or a new trial is granted.  (Emphasis added.) 
¶12 The text of Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) is inconclusive 
about the legislature's intent regarding dismissal of a criminal 
case with or without prejudice.  The language in § 971.11(7) 
that "the case shall be dismissed" is silent on the issue of 
dismissal with or without prejudice when the State fails to 
bring the criminal case on for trial within the 120-day time 
period set forth in § 971.11(2).  Although the legislature was 
aware of this issue, it failed to provide direction.  As the 
court of appeals explains, the legislature had the opportunity 
to make its intent perfectly clear but apparently declined to do 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
8 
 
so.5  In the absence of explicit direction in the text of the 
statute or legislative history, we must nevertheless determine 
whether the legislature intended a circuit court to dismiss the 
criminal case under § 971.11(7) with or without prejudice.   
¶13 The aim of statutory interpretation is to discern the 
intent of the legislature.  The court must ascertain the 
legislature's intent from the language of the statute in 
relation to its context, scope, history, and objective intended 
to be accomplished.6  A cardinal rule in interpreting statutes is 
to favor an interpretation that will fulfill the purpose of the 
statute over an interpretation that defeats the manifest 
objective of the act.7 
¶14 We 
agree 
with 
the 
court 
of 
appeals 
that 
"the 
legislature has left the matter up to the courts to exercise its 
[sic] discretion to dismiss with prejudice in a proper case lest 
the statute have no meaning at all."8  This interpretation of 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) granting a circuit court the discretion 
to dismiss a criminal case with or without prejudice best serves 
the legislative purposes:  First, this interpretation comports 
with the legislature's goal to prevent "the potential injustices 
                                                 
5 State v. Davis, 2001 WI App 63, ¶¶11 and 12, 242 
Wis. 2d 344, 626 N.W.2d 5. 
6 Dixon v. Dixon, 107 Wis. 2d 492, 498-99, 319 N.W.2d 846 
(1982). 
7 Dixon, 107 Wis. 2d at 498-99. 
8 Davis, 2001 WI App 63 at ¶15. 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
9 
 
resulting from the practice of filing detainers."9  Second, it 
comports with the legislature's objective to give an inmate "a 
greater degree of knowledge about his [or her] future [so that 
he or she] could begin more constructive planning and co-operate 
on a treatment program with the knowledge his [or her] efforts 
would not be minimized by the threat of unsatisfied charges."10  
Third, it comports with the "legislative intent to provide the 
operation of a speedier disposition for inmates than for others 
charged with crimes."11  Fourth, it comports with the legislative 
purpose to prevent the State from repeatedly dismissing and 
refiling a criminal case after a dismissal without prejudice, 
rendering the 120-day time period set forth in § 971.11(2) a 
nullity.  "The proper control of continued refiling of charges 
by the State is the authority of the courts to dismiss with 
prejudice."12  We further agree with the court of appeals that to 
interpret § 971.11(7) as requiring dismissal of a criminal case 
only without prejudice would deprive an inmate of prompt 
disposition of the case, which is the very purpose of § 971.11.   
                                                 
9 State ex rel. Fredenberg v. Byrne, 20 Wis. 2d 504, 511, 
123 N.W.2d 305 (1963). 
10 Davis, 2001 WI App 63 at ¶14 (quoting letter from 
Director of Public Welfare to the members of the State Board of 
Public Welfare recommending prompt passage of the Intrastate 
Detainer Act). 
11 State v. Adams, 207 Wis. 2d 568, 575, 558 N.W.2d 923 (Ct. 
App. 1996). 
12 Davis, 2001 WI App 63 at ¶15.  
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
10 
 
¶15 The 
court 
of 
appeals' 
interpretation 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) is also consistent with the statutory 
direction in § 971.11(2) that a criminal case against an accused 
shall be brought on for trial within the 120-day time period 
"subject to Wis. Stat. § 971.10," the "speedy trial" statute.  
Under section 971.10(3), a circuit court may in its discretion 
grant a continuance under the "speedy trial" provisions of 
§ 971.10.13  However, the circuit court must set forth in the 
                                                 
13 Wisconsin Stat. § 971.10 (2)(a) and (3) provides in 
relevant part as follows: 
 
(2)(a) The trial of a defendant charged with a felony 
shall commence within 90 days from the date trial is 
demanded 
by 
any 
party 
in 
writing 
or 
on 
the 
record . . . . 
(3)(a) A court may grant a continuance in a case, upon 
its own motion or the motion of any party, if the ends 
of justice served by taking action outweigh the best 
interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy 
trial.  A continuance shall not be granted under this 
paragraph unless the court sets forth, in the record 
of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons 
for finding that the ends of justice served by the 
granting 
of 
the 
continuance 
outweigh 
the 
best 
interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy 
trial. 
(b) The factors, among others, which the court shall 
consider in determining whether to grant a continuance 
under par. (a) are: 
1. Whether the failure to grant the continuance in the 
proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of 
the proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage 
of justice. 
2. Whether the case taken as a whole is so unusual and 
so complex, due to the number of defendants or the 
nature 
of 
the 
case 
or 
otherwise, 
that 
it 
is 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
11 
 
record its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served 
by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the 
public and the accused in a speedy trial.   
¶16 Because 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(2) 
states 
that 
it 
is 
subject to § 971.10, we must read §§ 971.10 and 971.11 together.  
Under Wis. Stat. § 971.10(4), if the State fails to meet the 
statutory speedy trial time periods and has not been granted a 
continuance, the accused is discharged from custody to the 
detriment of the State and to the benefit of the accused.  On 
the other hand, an accused cannot be discharged from custody as 
a consequence of the State's failure to bring a criminal case on 
for trial in the context of § 971.11, because the accused 
subject to § 971.11 is incarcerated for committing another 
crime.  However, the concept that failing to meet a statutory 
time period imposes a disadvantage on the State and grants a 
benefit to an accused applies equally to both §§ 971.11 and 
971.10. 
¶17 The detriment/benefit objective can be achieved in 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) by allowing a circuit court to dismiss a 
criminal case with prejudice when no good cause is shown for the 
                                                                                                                                                             
unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the 
periods of time established by this section. 
3. The interests of the victim, as defined in s. 
950.02(4). 
(c) No continuance under par. (a) may be granted 
because of general congestion of the court's calendar 
or the lack of diligent preparation or the failure to 
obtain available witnesses on the part of the state. 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
12 
 
State's failure to comply with the 120-day time period and to 
dismiss a criminal case without prejudice when good cause is 
shown for doing so.   
¶18 A dismissal of a criminal case with prejudice under 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) penalizes the State, but gives an accused 
the benefit of the prompt disposition statute and is thus in the 
public interest.   
¶19 However, a dismissal of a criminal case without 
prejudice under Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) also penalizes the State 
by forcing the State to begin the case again and repeat various 
proceedings, such as the preliminary hearing.  On the other 
hand, an accused may or may not benefit from a dismissal of a 
criminal case without prejudice.  Nonetheless, the objectives 
set forth in § 971.11 are furthered, and thus the public 
interest is protected.   
¶20 The 
court 
of 
appeals' 
interpretation 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) giving a circuit court the discretion to 
dismiss a criminal case with or without prejudice comports with 
the principles set forth in §§ 971.10 and 971.11. 
¶21 The State makes three arguments in its attempt to 
persuade this court that the court of appeals has erred in its 
interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 971.11: 
¶22 First, the State relies on State v. Braunsdorf, 98 
Wis. 2d 569, 
297 
N.W.2d 808 
(1980), 
in 
arguing 
that 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) requires dismissal of a criminal case 
without prejudice.  We agree with the court of appeals that the 
State's reliance on Braunsdorf is misplaced.  In Braunsdorf 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
13 
 
there was no statute that authorized or required the dismissal 
of a criminal case.  The Braunsdorf court held that in the 
absence of a statute, the "power to dismiss a criminal case with 
prejudice prior to jeopardy on nonconstitutional grounds is 
not . . . an inherent power of the trial courts of this state."14  
Because Braunsdorf addressed only a circuit court's inherent 
power to dismiss criminal cases, we conclude that it cannot be 
interpreted, as the State urges, to mean that a circuit court's 
authority to dismiss a criminal case is limited to a dismissal 
of the case without prejudice unless a statute explicitly 
authorizes a dismissal with prejudice. 
¶23 Second, the State argues that Wis. Stat. § 971.11, the 
Intrastate 
Detainer 
Act, 
should 
be 
read 
along 
with 
§ 976.05(3)(d), (4)(e), and (5)(c), the Interstate Detainer Act, 
which explicitly provides for dismissal of a criminal case "with 
prejudice."15  The State argues that the phrase "shall be 
dismissed" in the intrastate detainer statute means dismissal 
without prejudice rather than dismissal with prejudice.  Were it 
otherwise, the State argues, two different phrases, "shall be 
                                                 
14 State v. Braunsdorf, 98 Wis. 2d 569, 585, 297 N.W.2d 808 
(1980).  The court reaffirmed Braunsdorf in State v. Krueger, 
224 Wis. 2d 59, 61, 588 N.W.2d 921 (1999). 
15 Wisconsin statutes vary as to whether they merely state 
that a cause be dismissed (see, e.g., Wis. Stat. §§ 961.47(1), 
968.02(2), 
970.03(10), 
971.09(5), 
971.11(7), 
973.11(4), 
980.04(3), and 980.05(5)); that a cause be dismissed without 
prejudice (see, e.g., Wis. Stat. §§ 968.03(3), 971.01(2), and 
§ 971.14(1)(c)); and that a cause be dismissed with prejudice 
(see, 
e.g., 
Wis. Stat. §§  971.37(3), 
971.39(1)(f), 
976.05(3)(d), 976.05(4)(e), and 976.05(5)(c)). 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
14 
 
dismissed" and dismissed "with prejudice," in these two related 
statutes would be given the same meaning, and the words "with 
prejudice" 
in 
the 
interstate 
detainer 
statute 
would 
be 
superfluous. 
¶24 We are not convinced by the State's reasoning.  The 
phrase "with prejudice" in the Interstate Detainer Act was 
clearly intended to ensure that dismissals under that act were 
with prejudice.  The phrase "with prejudice" will not be 
superfluous regardless of how the phrase "shall be dismissed" in 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) is interpreted.  Neither the language nor 
the history of the two statutes makes it clear, as the State 
contends, that the legislature intended a dismissal of a 
criminal case under the two statutes to result in different 
outcomes.   
¶25 Third, 
the 
State 
argues 
that 
interpreting 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) to grant circuit courts the discretion to 
dismiss a criminal case with or without prejudice intrudes into 
the realm of prosecutorial discretion.  The State asserts that 
under § 971.11(7) a circuit court shall dismiss a criminal case 
in two circumstances: (1) if the district attorney moves to 
dismiss the case; or (2) if the case is not brought on for trial 
within the time specified in subsections (2) or (3).  The phrase 
"shall be dismissed" applies to both situations and must be 
interpreted in the same way for both situations.   
¶26 The State argues that the legislature did not intend 
to limit a district attorney's discretion to dismiss a criminal 
case by allowing a circuit court to dismiss the criminal case 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
15 
 
with prejudice upon the district attorney's motion to dismiss.  
We disagree with the State.  Although prosecutors have broad 
discretion in criminal matters, that discretion is not without 
limits.  We conclude that the legislature achieved its objective 
in Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) of prompt disposition of certain cases 
by increasing the circuit court's power over a prosecutor's 
power to dismiss a criminal case.  
¶27 Because the defendant in the present case properly 
requested a prompt disposition of his criminal case pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11, we conclude that the State's failure to 
bring the case on for trial within the 120-day time period set 
forth in § 971.11(2) permits the circuit court under § 971.11(7) 
to exercise its discretion to dismiss the criminal case with or 
without prejudice. 
 
III 
 
¶28 We must now determine whether the circuit court 
properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the criminal 
case against the defendant with prejudice.  A reviewing court 
will affirm a discretionary decision by a circuit court so long 
as 
the 
circuit 
court 
did 
not 
erroneously 
exercise 
its 
discretion.16  An erroneous exercise of discretion results when 
the exercise of discretion is based on an error of law.17  An 
                                                 
16 Hull v. State Farm. Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 222 Wis. 2d 627, 
635-6, 586 N.W.2d 863 (1998).   
17 Hull, 222 Wis. 2d at 636.  
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
16 
 
erroneous exercise of discretion occurs when the circuit court 
does not consider the facts of record under the relevant law or 
does not reason its way to a rational conclusion.18 
¶29 In exercising its discretion to dismiss a criminal 
case with or without prejudice for the State's failure to bring 
the case on for trial within the time period set forth in 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7), a circuit court should consider a number 
of factors including, but not limited to, the following: the 
reasons for and the length of the delay in bringing the criminal 
case on for trial; whether the nature of the case makes it 
unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the statutory 
time period; an accused's conduct contributing to the delay; an 
accused's waiver of the statutory right to prompt disposition;19 
the harm to an accused resulting from the delay, such as anxiety 
and concern; the effect of the delay on an accused's legal 
defenses; the effect of the delay on the programs and movement 
within the institutions available to an accused; the effect of 
the delay on the orderly rehabilitation process of an accused 
within the Department of Corrections; the effect of the delay on 
                                                 
18 Burkes v. Hales, 165 Wis. 2d 585, 590-91, 478 N.W.2d 37 
(Ct. App. 1991).   
19 The court of appeals noted that the State did not raise 
the issue of the defendant's waiver of his statutory right to 
prompt disposition in the circuit court and, therefore, the 
court of appeals would not consider the argument.  The court of 
appeals also concluded that the record is insufficient to 
evaluate whether any of the defendant's or defense counsel's 
actions could be construed as a waiver.  Davis, 2001 WI App 63 
at ¶5 n.3. 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
17 
 
an accused's concurrent sentencing possibilities; the effect of 
the delay on an accused's possible transfer to a less secure 
facility; the effect of the delay on an accused's opportunity 
for parole; the effect of the delay on the transfer of the 
accused to another institution; the effect of the delay and 
dismissal on the public interest in the prompt prosecution of 
crime; and the effect of the delay and dismissal on the victim.  
By balancing these and other factors, the circuit court will not 
necessarily produce the same result in every case. 
¶30 The circuit court in the present case reasoned that 
dismissal of the criminal case against the defendant with 
prejudice 
was 
necessary 
as 
a 
matter 
of 
law 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11 because dismissal without prejudice would 
leave no remedy for any inmate to enforce the statutory right of 
prompt disposition under § 971.11.  The circuit court stated in 
relevant part: 
 
I find as a matter of law that any time charges are 
filed against someone in a correctional institution 
and they file a . . . prompt disposition request, that 
971.11 should be complied with to the letter . . . .  
I also find as a matter of law that . . . dismissal 
without prejudice in this Court's view would leave 
absolutely no teeth in the statute whatsoever.  As far 
as I'm concerned, it would mean that the inmate has a 
remedy without any enforcement power. 
¶31 The circuit court also recognized the special interest 
shared by inmates and society in the speedy disposition of 
pending criminal charges.  Rehabilitation is hampered, stated 
the 
circuit 
court, 
by 
keeping 
inmates 
in 
security 
classifications that because of pending charges may not be 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
18 
 
appropriate.  The circuit court stated:  "I'm assuming we are 
all interested in rehabilitating our inmates.  We can't 
rehabilitate 
our 
inmates 
by 
keeping 
them 
in 
security 
classifications 
simply 
because 
there 
are 
charges 
pending 
elsewhere."   
¶32 The circuit court further reasoned that all of the 
persons 
charged 
with 
carrying 
out 
the 
requirements 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11 in the present case failed except for the 
defendant, who properly sought the prompt disposition of the 
criminal case against him.  The circuit court stated: 
 
I don't think all of the requirements of the statute 
have been complied with by the people who are required 
to comply with it.   
 
If the Court has some sort of obligation here, the 
Court didn't comply with it.  The district attorney 
didn't comply with it.  The warden didn't comply with 
it.  The sheriff didn't comply with it.  The only 
person as far as I can tell that complied with any 
portion of the statute is [the defendant] himself. 
¶33 The circuit court appears to have decided that 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) requires dismissal of a criminal case 
with prejudice as a matter of law.  The circuit court seems to 
have further concluded that unless the present case was 
dismissed with prejudice, an accused would have no remedy to 
enforce the statutory right to prompt disposition.  The circuit 
court's rationale and the application of the rationale to the 
facts in the present case come close to requiring dismissal with 
prejudice in every criminal case when a district attorney fails 
to bring a case on for trial within the 120-day time period set 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
19 
 
forth in § 971.11(2).  We therefore conclude, in contrast to the 
court of appeals, that the circuit court did not properly 
exercise its discretion to consider dismissal without prejudice 
before dismissing the criminal case against the defendant with 
prejudice.   
¶34 In summary, we conclude, as did the court of appeals, 
that 
Wis. Stat. § 971.11(7) 
grants 
a 
circuit 
court 
the 
discretion to dismiss a criminal case with or without prejudice 
if the case has not been brought on for trial within the 120-day 
time period set forth in § 971.11(2).  We further conclude that 
the circuit court did not properly exercise its discretion in 
the present case, and accordingly, we remand the cause to the 
circuit court to exercise its discretion consistent with this 
court's interpretation of § 971.11(7). 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court. 
 
No. 
00-0889-CR   
 
 
 
1