Title: Office of State Pub. Defender v. Court of Appeals

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2013 WI 31 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP544-W   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of State v. Michael B. Buchanan, 
2011AP1997-CR: 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Office of the State 
Public  
Defender, 
          Petitioner, 
     v. 
Court of Appeals, District IV and the Honorable 
Paul Lundsten, presiding, 
          Respondents.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
PETITION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT  
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 9, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
November 5, 2012   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
BRADLEY, J., ABRAHAMSON, C.J., PROSSER, J., 
dissent. (Opinion filed.)   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the petitioner, there were briefs by Joseph N. Ehmann, 
first assistant state public defender, and Kelli S. Thompson, 
state public defender, and oral argument by Joseph N. Ehmann.    
 
 
For the respondents, there was a brief by Patrick J. 
Fiedler and Tyler Wilkinson, and Axley Brynelson, LLP, Madison, 
and oral argument by Patrick J. Fiedler. 
 
 
 
2
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of the State of 
Wisconsin by Marguerite M. Moeller, assistant attorney general, 
with whom on the brief was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general. 
 
 
 
                                                                             2013 WI 31
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP544-W  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of State v. Michael B. Buchanan, 
2011AP1997-CR (L.C. No. 2009CF113): 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Office of the State 
Public Defender, 
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Court of Appeals, District IV and the Honorable 
Paul Lundsten, presiding, 
 
          Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 9, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
PETITION for supervisory writ.  Rights declared; relief 
granted, case proceeds accordingly at the court of appeals.   
 
¶1 
ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.    This is a review of 
an order of the court of appeals1 that required defense counsel 
to seek permission from the circuit court in order to reference 
information from a presentence investigation report (PSI) in an 
appellate brief.   
                                                 
1 State v. Buchanan, 2011AP1997-CR, unpublished order (Wis. 
Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2012).   
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
2 
 
¶2 
Assistant 
State 
Public 
Defender 
Steven 
Grunder 
(Grunder) was appointed as postconviction counsel for Michael 
Buchanan (Buchanan).  Grunder, on Buchanan's behalf, filed a 
motion with the court of appeals seeking permission to use, cite 
to, and quote from2 Buchanan's PSI in his appellate brief.  The 
court of appeals granted the motion.  The State, in turn, filed 
a motion seeking the same permission to use, cite to, and quote 
from the PSI for its own appellate brief.  The State's motion 
stated that it had been the attorney general's practice to seek 
the circuit court's permission to cite a PSI in an appellate 
brief following State v. Parent, 2006 WI 132, 298 Wis. 2d 63, 
725 N.W.2d 915.  The court of appeals then issued an order that 
placed under seal all copies of Buchanan's brief, directed the 
parties to move the circuit court for permission to cite the 
PSI, and denied the State's motion to the court of appeals for 
permission to cite the PSI.  The State Public Defender (SPD) 
petitioned this court to issue a supervisory writ vacating the 
court of appeals' order and clarifying that the parties in 
Buchanan's case need not ask permission of any court before 
citing the PSI in their appellate briefs.  Uniquely, the State 
filed an amicus brief agreeing with the SPD. 
¶3 
We conclude that the SPD has not met the requirements 
for issuance of a supervisory writ.  However, pursuant to our 
superintending and administrative authority, we conclude that in 
                                                 
2 Throughout the opinion, "reference" includes use, citation 
to, and quotation from the PSI.   
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
3 
 
a merit appeal, parties who are entitled "to have and keep a 
copy" of a PSI pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m) (2009-10)3 
need not ask any court's permission to reference a PSI in an 
appellate brief.  Parties may reference information from the PSI 
that does not reveal confidential information and that is 
relevant to the appeal.  We urge counsel to be abundantly 
cautious when deciding whether it is necessary to cite sensitive 
information and when choosing how to cite such content. 
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
¶4 
In 2010, Buchanan pled no contest to two crimes.  The 
circuit court sentenced Buchanan, and he filed a notice of 
intent to pursue postconviction relief.  The SPD assigned 
Attorney Grunder to represent Buchanan.  On November 22, 2011, 
Buchanan's counsel filed a motion with the court of appeals 
seeking permission to cite "the portions of the PSI relevant to 
the defendant's appeal."  The motion stated that Buchanan's 
appeal was focused on sentencing issues, that it was necessary 
to cite the PSI to develop Buchanan's appellate claims, and that 
the portions of the PSI that Buchanan sought to use contained no 
confidential information.  On November 30, 2011, the court of 
appeals issued an order granting the motion.  The order allowed 
Buchanan to "quote sparingly" from the PSI but directed him not 
to use the initials or, by extension, the names of any 
                                                 
3 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2009-10 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
4 
 
individuals identified in the PSI.  Buchanan then filed the 
appellate brief.   
¶5 
On January 4, 2012, a motion was filed on the State's 
behalf seeking the same permission to "quote from the PSI, 
subject to the same constraints" for the purposes of its own 
appellate brief.  The State's motion stated that to fully 
respond to Buchanan's appellate brief, it needed permission to 
cite the PSI.  The motion noted that following Parent, it has 
been the practice of the attorney general's office to seek 
permission from the circuit court to cite a PSI in an appellate 
brief.   
¶6 
On February 13, 2012, the court of appeals issued an 
order that, inter alia, placed under seal all copies of 
Buchanan's brief, directed the parties to move the circuit court 
for permission to "access, discuss, cite to, or quote from the 
PSI," and denied the State's motion to the court of appeals for 
permission to cite the PSI.  The court of appeals reasoned that 
"Parent makes clear that the circuit court, and not this court, 
is the proper tribunal to preside over motions requesting access 
to and disclosure of the contents of PSI reports." 
¶7 
On February 24, 2012, Buchanan filed a motion for 
reconsideration in the court of appeals.  Buchanan argued that a 
defendant has a right to deny or explain statements in the PSI, 
which could be violated if he or she is required to obtain 
circuit court permission to use the PSI.  Further, Buchanan 
argued that Parent is limited to no-merit appeals and that the 
confidentiality requirement of Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) and (4m) 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
5 
 
is 
met 
by 
compliance 
with 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ (Rule) 809.81(8) 
("Every . . . document that is filed in the court and that is 
required by law to be confidential shall refer to individuals 
only by their first name and the first initial of their last 
name.").   
¶8 
On March 2, 2012, the court of appeals denied 
Buchanan's motion for reconsideration.   
¶9 
On March 14, 2012, the SPD petitioned this court for a 
supervisory writ.  The petition asks this court to vacate the 
court of appeals' order that required the parties to move the 
circuit court for permission to "access, discuss, cite to, or 
quote from the PSI."  The SPD, and the State as an amicus, asks 
this court to rule that parties who are entitled "to have and 
keep a copy" of a PSI need not ask any court's permission to 
cite to or quote from a PSI in an appellate brief, subject to 
the confidentiality requirement of Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4)——(4m). 
¶10 On June 13, 2012, we accepted the case for full 
briefing and argument.   
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
¶11 The first question presented is whether this court 
should issue a supervisory writ vacating the court of appeals' 
order.  As the court of original jurisdiction, we have 
discretion to issue a supervisory writ.  See Wis. Const. art. 
VII, § 3; Wis. Stat. § 751.07; State ex rel. Dressler v. Circuit 
Court for Racine Cnty., 163 Wis. 2d 622, 630, 472 N.W.2d 532 
(Ct. App. 1991).  However, a supervisory writ is a drastic and 
extraordinary remedy that will not be granted unless the 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
6 
 
petition meets "stringent prerequisites."  State ex rel. Lynch 
v. County Court, Branch III, 82 Wis. 2d 454, 459, 262 N.W.2d 773 
(1978).   
¶12 The second question presented is whether parties who 
are entitled "to have and keep a copy" of a PSI pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 972.15(4m) need any court's permission to reference a 
PSI in an appellate brief.  This question requires us to 
interpret § 972.15.  Interpretation of a statute is a question 
of law that this court reviews de novo while benefitting from 
the analyses of the lower courts.  See State v. Ziegler, 2012 WI 
73, ¶37, 342 Wis. 2d 256, 816 N.W.2d 238. 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Supervisory Writ 
¶13 We conclude that the SPD has not met the requirements 
for issuance of a supervisory writ.  However, pursuant to our 
superintending and administrative authority, we nonetheless 
consider the second question presented. 
¶14 "A supervisory writ is an extraordinary remedy to 
prevent a court from refusing to perform, or from violating, its 
plain duty."  Madison Metro. Sch. Dist. v. Circuit Court for 
Dane Cnty., 2011 WI 72, ¶33, 336 Wis. 2d 95, 800 N.W.2d 442 
(citing Dressler, 163 Wis. 2d at 630).  A petition for a 
supervisory writ will not be issued unless: 
(1) an appeal is an utterly inadequate remedy; (2) the 
duty of the [] court is plain; (3) its refusal to act 
within the line of such duty or its intent to act in 
violation of such duty is clear; (4) the results of 
the [] court's action must not only be prejudicial but 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
7 
 
must involve extraordinary hardship; and, (5) the 
request for relief was made promptly and speedily.  
Id., ¶77 (quoting Dressler, 163 Wis. 2d at 630). 
¶15 The parties agree on the first prong, that an appeal 
would be an inadequate remedy, and on the fifth prong, that the 
SPD's request for relief was made promptly and speedily.  The 
SPD argues that under Wis. Stat. § 972.15, the court of appeals 
had a plain duty to accept Buchanan's brief as filed and its 
refusal to accept Buchanan's brief was clear.  Further, the SPD 
argues that requiring it to seek circuit court permission to 
cite a PSI would be an extraordinary hardship because it may 
violate a defendant's due process right to appeal and would be 
too costly for the SPD.  The court of appeals argues that it did 
not violate a plain duty when it ordered Buchanan to seek 
circuit court permission to cite his PSI.  The court of appeals 
further argues that it would not be an extraordinary hardship 
for the SPD to seek circuit court permission to cite a PSI. 
¶16 The standard for "extraordinary hardship" has been met 
in few cases.  For example, in Madison Metropolitan, after a 
school district expelled a student, the circuit court issued an 
order requiring the district to provide appropriate educational 
resources to the student.  336 Wis. 2d 95, ¶22.  This court 
affirmed the court of appeals' grant of a supervisory writ, 
finding that the "extraordinary hardship" prong had been met:  
[T]he potential extraordinary harm to the District is 
inherent in the specter of interference by the courts. 
The District would be faced not only with the costs of 
any continued educational services ordered by the 
circuit court but also the prospect that such costs 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
8 
 
would interfere with the District's performance of its 
duties in lawfully expelling students who endanger the 
health and safety of others. 
Id., ¶89.  In Lynch, in response to a criminal defendant's 
demand for all exculpatory material in the district attorney's 
possession at the preliminary hearing stage, the circuit court 
ordered the district attorney to make its case files available 
for defense counsel's inspection.  82 Wis. 2d at 458-59.  The 
State argued that the circuit court's order would cause an 
extraordinary 
hardship 
because 
it 
would, 
inter 
alia, 
"unjustifiably delay" the case below and would "create a 
precedent which is likely to hinder the efforts of the 
prosecution in future cases."  Id. at 462-63.  We agreed that 
the extraordinary hardship test had been met: 
Inspection of the state's files by the defense at 
this early stage, where there has been no showing of 
particularized need for inspection, can serve only as 
an 
opportunity 
for 
generalized, 
unrestricted 
discovery, 
rather 
than 
as 
a 
device 
for 
the 
constitutionally 
mandated 
disclosure 
of 
specific 
exculpatory 
material. 
 
Such 
discovery . . . will 
unjustifiably delay the administration of justice. 
Id. at 466 (footnote omitted). 
¶17 In the case before the court, even assuming the delay 
and extra cost of obtaining circuit court permission would cause 
an "extraordinary hardship," we conclude that the SPD has not 
met the criteria to grant a supervisory writ.  After Parent, 
there remained a legitimate question of whether parties to a 
merit appeal needed circuit court permission to cite a PSI in 
their appellate briefs.  When Buchanan filed his brief including 
information from his PSI, it was unclear whether the court of 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
9 
 
appeals had a plain duty to accept the brief as filed.  Part 
III.B.1. of this opinion discusses that question.   
¶18 We nonetheless conclude that it is appropriate for 
this court to exercise our superintending and administrative 
authority to clarify the procedure that a defendant's counsel 
and the State's representative should follow to cite a PSI in 
their appellate briefs.  Superintending and administrative 
authority allows this court to implement "procedural rules not 
specifically required by the Constitution or the [statute]."  
State v. Ernst, 2005 WI 107, ¶19, 283 Wis. 2d 300, 699 N.W.2d 92 
(quoting United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983)).  
"Such rules are designed to implement a remedy for a violation 
of recognized rights."  Id.  The Wisconsin Constitution provides 
that 
"[t]he 
supreme 
court 
shall 
have 
superintending 
and 
administrative authority over all courts."  Wis. Const. art. 
VII, § 3.  This power "is indefinite in character, unsupplied 
with means and instrumentalities, and limited only by the 
necessities of justice."  Ernst, 283 Wis. 2d 300, ¶19. 
B. Citation to a PSI in an Appellate Brief 
1. Interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 972.15 
¶19 Pursuant to our superintending and administrative 
authority, we conclude that in a merit appeal, parties who are 
entitled "to have and keep a copy" of a PSI pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 972.15(4m) need not ask any court's permission to 
reference a PSI in an appellate brief.  Parties may reference 
information from the PSI that does not reveal confidential 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
10 
 
information and that is relevant to the appeal.  Extreme caution 
should be undertaken when referencing sensitive information.4   
¶20 The SPD, joined by the State as an amicus, argues that 
court permission is not needed before defense counsel or the 
State may cite to a PSI in an appellate brief.  The SPD argues 
that 
requiring 
circuit 
court 
permission 
may 
violate 
a 
defendant's rights, since a defendant has a due process right to 
be sentenced upon accurate information, see State v. Tiepelman, 
2006 WI 66, ¶9, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1, a right to 
disclosure of all information in the PSI, see Gardner v. 
Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 361-62 (1977), and a right to challenge 
any statement in the PSI that he or she believes to be 
inaccurate or incomplete, see State v. Greve, 2004 WI 69, ¶11, 
272 Wis. 2d 444, 681 N.W.2d 479.  The SPD further argues that 
Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m), which authorizes the district attorney 
and the defendant's attorney "to have and keep a copy" of the 
PSI, should be interpreted to authorize those parties to use, 
cite, and quote the PSI in an appellate brief without court 
authorization.  The SPD additionally argues that Parent is 
limited to no-merit appeals.   
¶21 The court of appeals concluded that the circuit court 
is the appropriate tribunal to grant authorization to cite a PSI 
in an appellate brief.  It determined that under Wis. Stat. 
                                                 
4 A PSI should be quoted as sparingly as possible, and 
counsel must exercise sound discretion to avoid compromising 
sensitive information.  On occasion, appellate counsel may need 
guidance from the court of appeals. 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
11 
 
§ 972.15(4), after sentencing, the PSI "shall be confidential 
and shall not be made available to any person except upon 
specific authorization of the court."  Further, under Wis. Stat. 
§ 967.02(7), "'Court' means the circuit court unless otherwise 
indicated."  The court of appeals reasons that though Wis. Stat. 
§ 972.15(4m) entitles the district attorney and defense counsel 
to "have and keep a copy" of the PSI, it does not authorize them 
to use, cite, or quote the PSI.   
¶22 The 
resolution 
of 
this 
question 
requires 
interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 972.15, which states in relevant 
part: 
(3) The judge may conceal the identity of any 
person who provided information in the presentence 
investigation report. 
(4) Except as provided in sub. (4m), (5), or (6), 
after sentencing the presentence investigation report 
shall be confidential and shall not be made available 
to any person except upon specific authorization of 
the court.   
(4m) The district attorney and the defendant's 
attorney are entitled to have and keep a copy of the 
presentence investigation report.  If the defendant is 
not represented by counsel, the defendant is entitled 
to view the presentence investigation report but may 
not keep a copy of the report.  A district attorney or 
defendant's attorney who receives a copy of the report 
shall keep it confidential.  A defendant who views the 
contents of a presentence investigation report shall 
keep the information in the report confidential.  
Under 
§ 972.15(4), 
there 
is 
a 
general 
rule 
that 
after 
sentencing, the PSI is confidential and parties seeking access 
must seek "specific authorization of the court."  However, 
certain parties are exempted from this general rule under 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
12 
 
§ 972.15(4m), 
including 
"[t]he 
district 
attorney 
and 
the 
defendant's attorney."  These parties are entitled "to have and 
keep 
a 
copy" 
of 
the 
PSI, 
but 
the 
PSI 
must 
be 
kept 
"confidential."   
¶23 "'The 
purpose of statutory interpretation is to 
determine what the statute means so that it may be given its 
full, proper, and intended effect.'"  Ziegler, 342 Wis. 2d 256, 
¶42 (quoting Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co., 2012 WI 
26, 
¶26, 
339 
Wis. 2d 125, 
810 
N.W.2d 465). 
 
Statutory 
interpretation "begins with the language of the statute."   
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, 
¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.  Except for technical or 
specially-defined words, statutory language is given its common, 
ordinary meaning.  Id.  Statutory language is interpreted in the 
context in which it is used, not in isolation but as part of a 
whole.  Id., ¶46.  We must construe statutory language 
reasonably; an unreasonable interpretation is one that yields 
absurd results or one that contravenes the statute's manifest 
purpose.  Id.   
¶24 We conclude that in a merit appeal, parties who are 
entitled "to have and keep a copy" of a PSI pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 972.15(4m) need not ask any court's permission to 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
13 
 
reference a PSI in an appellate brief, subject to restrictions 
outlined in Part III.B.2.5   
¶25 While we agree with the court of appeals that the 
circuit court is a "gatekeeper" of the PSI, the statutory 
language does not require parties' attorneys to obtain circuit 
court permission before referencing a PSI in an appellate brief.  
The court of appeals determined that under § 972.15(4), the 
circuit court alone may authorize access to the PSI.  It is true 
that Wis. Stat. § 967.02(7) defines "court" as the circuit court 
and Wis. Stat. § 972.15 otherwise requires court authorization 
to release the PSI.  However, this determination does not fully 
consider that the defendant's attorney and the State are already 
entitled "to have and keep a copy" of the PSI under Wis. Stat. 
§ 972.15(4m). 
                                                 
5 As a practical matter, this holding applies whether a 
defendant maintains his or her trial counsel, retains new 
appellate counsel, or is appointed appellate counsel through the 
SPD on appeal.  Similarly, this rule applies whether the 
district attorney maintains responsibility or the attorney 
general assumes responsibility of the case on appeal.  As a 
general rule, appellate counsel has access to trial counsel's 
file in order to appropriately appeal or respond to the appeal.  
Once the attorney general takes over the appeal from the 
district attorney, the district attorney "shall transfer all 
necessary files and papers relating to the case to the attorney 
general."  Wis. Stat. § 752.31(4); Wisconsin Department of 
Justice, Appellate Practice for Wisconsin Prosecutors 10 (May 
2012) (discussing transfer of files between district attorney 
and attorney general).  Similarly, the defendant's appellate 
counsel obtains the defendant's case file from trial counsel.  
See The Wisconsin State Public Defender's Office SPD Appellate 
Division, 
Comprehensive 
Checklist 
Guide, 
available 
at 
http://www.wisspd.org/htm/ATPracGuides/Appellate.asp 
(appellate 
counsel should secure case materials from trial counsel within 
one week of appointment).  
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
14 
 
¶26 The court of appeals also turns to the fact that the 
statute does not specifically authorize those who are entitled 
"to have and keep a copy" of the PSI to actually "use" it.  We 
disagree with the court of appeals' reasoning.  The court of 
appeals points to Wis. Stat. § 972.15(5) and (6), which 
authorize "use" of the PSI for the Department of Corrections 
(DOC) and for parties involved in Chapter 980 proceedings.6  It 
reasons that because the statute authorizes "use" in those 
instances, court permission must be received in order for those 
who are entitled "to have and keep a copy" of the PSI to "use" 
it.  However, the DOC and the parties to a subsequent civil 
proceeding are in a different position than counsel representing 
parties to the underlying criminal matter for which the PSI was 
created.  Unlike the attorneys, who under § 972.15(4m) are 
entitled "to have and keep a copy" of the PSI, those referenced 
in § 972.15(5) and (6) would not otherwise have access to the 
PSI absent that language, nor would they be parties to an appeal 
of the underlying criminal matter.  The attorneys in the 
criminal matter, who are granted authority "to have and keep a 
copy" of the PSI in the criminal matter, have been granted that 
authority because they may need to use that PSI in the appeal.   
                                                 
6 Wisconsin Stat. § 972.15(5) authorizes the DOC to "use" 
the PSI for correctional programming, treatment planning, and 
similar purposes.  The DOC may also authorize access to a PSI to 
third parties for research.  Under § 972.15(6), various parties 
can "use[]" the PSI in a Chapter 980 proceeding.  No further 
court permission is needed for them to "use" the PSI even though 
they had no standing in the criminal matter for which the PSI 
was created. 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
15 
 
¶27 Moreover, a practical example of how the statute is 
interpreted proves helpful.  Under § 972.15(1), "the court may 
order" a PSI even though the statute does not specifically say 
that the court may "use" the PSI for the purpose of sentencing a 
defendant.  Nonetheless, the circuit court properly "uses" the 
PSI when sentencing the defendant.   
¶28 Furthermore, under Wis. Stat. § 808.075, once a case 
is appealed, the circuit court's power is limited.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 808.075(4)(g).  For example, it does not retain power to 
redact portions of the PSI.7  The parties would have to petition 
the court of appeals under § 808.075(5) to remand the case to 
the circuit court.  If the petition for remand was granted, then 
the court of appeals would have to send the case record back to 
the circuit court.  See § 808.075(6).  Further, there is no 
guarantee that upon remand, the same circuit court judge will 
hear the motion to reference the PSI.  There is no quantifiable 
benefit if this procedure is required.   
¶29 Our interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 972.15 is not in 
conflict with Parent, as that case was centered around access to 
the PSI, not use of the PSI.  We conclude that the rule of 
                                                 
7 The circuit court and trial counsel should exercise great 
caution when the case is before the circuit court to ensure that 
the PSI is properly redacted before it goes up on appeal.  Under 
Wis. Stat. § 972.15(3), before sentencing, the circuit court 
judge already has the power to "conceal the identity of any 
person who provided information" in the PSI.  Parties must also 
comply with various rules of confidentiality, including Wis. 
Stat. § (Rule) 809.81(8) (refer to individuals in confidential 
documents by first name and first initial of last name). 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
16 
 
Parent is confined to no-merit appeals.8  In Parent, this court 
held that in a no-merit appeal, the defendant is entitled to 
view a copy of the PSI, subject to redaction of identifying 
information of informants and to the requirement that the 
defendant keep the information in the PSI confidential.  298 
Wis. 2d 63, ¶50.  Further, we held that the attorney general's 
office, which is typically not involved in no-merit appeals, 
must make its request to obtain a copy and disclose contents of 
the PSI to the circuit court.  Id.   
                                                 
8 The no-merit appeal procedure seeks to reconcile a 
defendant's right to appeal and right to effective assistance of 
counsel, with an attorney's duty to avoid making frivolous 
arguments.  State v. Parent, 2006 WI 132, ¶¶17-19, 298 
Wis. 2d 63, 725 N.W.2d 915.  If a defendant wishes to appeal a 
conviction and counsel does not believe there is any merit to 
the defendant's arguments, counsel must follow the procedure set 
forth in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32 and State v. Tillman, 2005 
WI App 71, 281 Wis. 2d 157, 696 N.W.2d 574: 
First, appointed counsel examines the record for 
potential appellate issues of arguable merit.  See 
Rule 809.32(1)(a) ("The no merit report shall identify 
anything in the record that might arguably support the 
appeal and discuss the reasons why each identified 
issue lacks merit.").  Next, the defendant has the 
opportunity to respond to the no merit report and 
raise additional issues.  Rule 809.32(1)(e).  Next, as 
contemplated by Anders, the appellate court not only 
examines the no merit report but also conducts its own 
scrutiny of the record to see if there are any 
potential 
appellate 
issues 
with 
arguable 
merit.  
Finally, the court's no merit decision sets forth the 
potential appellate issues and explains in turn why 
each has no arguable merit. 
Id., ¶17 (citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 
(1967)).   
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
17 
 
¶30 In that case, Michael Parent (Parent) pled guilty to 
several charges, and the circuit court ordered a PSI.  Id., ¶8.  
The circuit court sentenced Parent to a term of imprisonment 
consisting of 11 years of initial confinement and 11 years of 
extended supervision.  Id.  Parent's counsel filed a no-merit 
notice of appeal and requested a copy of Parent's PSI.  Id., ¶9.  
The circuit court denied Parent access to his PSI, stating that 
Parent was trying to "draw attention to himself" and that 
providing him with a copy of the PSI would "only encourage Mr. 
Parent to raise issues that are without merit."  Id., ¶11.  
Parent appealed, and the court of appeals denied Parent's motion 
to access his PSI.  Id., ¶12.  Parent's appellate counsel 
petitioned this court for a supervisory writ, which we granted.  
Id., ¶13.  We remanded to the court of appeals, and the court of 
appeals certified the case back to this court:  
[T]he court of appeals certified the case to this 
court to clarify the procedure and factors to be 
considered when deciding whether a defendant should 
receive a copy of a PSI report to facilitate his or 
her response to a no-merit report, and to decide 
whether motions filed by the State seeking access to a 
PSI report and disclosure of its contents in the 
State's brief should be filed in the court of appeals 
or in [the] circuit court.   
Id., ¶14.   
¶31 At the time Parent's counsel requested a copy of the 
PSI, Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m) did not exist.  Thus, the statute 
required Parent's counsel to obtain circuit court authorization 
to access Parent's PSI.  See Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) (2003-04).  
In the course of the litigation, the legislature added subsec. 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
18 
 
(4m) to § 972.15, which rendered moot the question of whether 
Parent and Parent's counsel were entitled to view and retain 
respectively, a copy of the PSI.  See 2005 Wis. Act 311, § 2.   
¶32 When 
reviewing 
the 
newly 
created 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 972.15(4m), the court concluded that a defendant is entitled 
to view the PSI and the circuit court may not altogether deny 
access to the PSI.  Parent, 298 Wis. 2d 63, ¶34.  This right is 
subject to the circuit court's discretion under § 972.15(3) to 
conceal the identity of any person who provided information in 
the PSI report and the requirement that the defendant keep the 
information in the PSI confidential.  Id.  For the purposes of 
§ 972.15(4m), Parent concluded that a defendant in a no-merit 
appeal is more like an "unrepresented" defendant than a 
represented defendant.  Id., ¶41.  Under § 972.15(4m), an 
unrepresented defendant "is entitled to view the [PSI] but may 
not keep a copy of the report."  Id., ¶43.   
¶33 The next question this court considered was whether 
the State's motion seeking access to and disclosure of the PSI 
should go to the circuit court or the court of appeals.  Id., 
¶47.  The framing of this issue presupposed that the attorney 
general did not already have access to the PSI, which is logical 
in a no-merit case where (1) subsec. (4m) was not in existence 
during the underlying criminal case, so the State could not 
"have and keep a copy" of the PSI, and (2) the State may not 
become involved unless and until the court of appeals determines 
that the defendant's appeal has merit.  See Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 809.32 (procedure for no-merit reports); Tillman, 281 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
19 
 
Wis. 2d 157, ¶17; Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 472, 198 
N.W.2d 577 (1972) (stating that if the appeals court finds merit 
in the defendant's claim, it orders that the case "proceed with 
the appeal").  Parent determined that for the purposes of a no-
merit appeal, the attorney general "should submit any requests 
to obtain a copy of the PSI report and to disclose its contents 
in the State's brief to the circuit court."  298 Wis. 2d 63, 
¶49.   
¶34 In Parent, neither party had access to the PSI.  The 
question presented in Parent was how the parties to a no-merit 
appeal can access the PSI.  Id., ¶14.  In this case, there is no 
question 
of 
access; 
the 
plain 
language 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 972.15(4m) 
authorizes 
the 
defendant's 
attorney 
and 
the 
district attorney to "have and keep a copy" of the PSI.  The 
question presented in this case is whether parties who are 
already authorized by § 972.15(4m) "to have and keep a copy" of 
the PSI must obtain court permission to use information 
contained in the PSI in their appellate briefs.  Therefore, 
Parent is not controlling on the issue now before this court 
because it concerned access to the PSI in a no-merit appeal.  We 
conclude that the rule of Parent is limited to no-merit appeals. 
¶35 As a practical matter, even if counsel were required 
to engage in motion practice before the circuit court or the 
court of appeals seeking permission to reference information 
contained in a PSI, that motion would provide little, if any, 
opportunity for the court to evaluate the confidentiality of the 
information or the sensitive contents contained in a PSI.  The 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
20 
 
motion itself is typically quite broad, and requests permission, 
as Buchanan's counsel did here, "to cite the portions of the PSI 
relevant to the defendant's appeal."  The court's response is 
likewise quite broad, as it was here, giving permission to 
"quote sparingly" from the PSI.  By necessity, the attorney's 
motion and the court's response must lack detail, otherwise the 
sensitive or confidential information would become a public 
record through the motion and the decision of the court.  Thus, 
requiring court approval provides little, if any, guarantee that 
information will be treated any differently than if no motion 
were required. 
2. Confidentiality 
¶36 We conclude that parties who are entitled "to have and 
keep a copy" of a PSI pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m) need 
not ask any court's permission to reference a PSI in an 
appellate brief.  Parties may reference information from the PSI 
that does not reveal confidential information and that is 
relevant to the appeal.9  We urge counsel to be abundantly 
cautious when deciding whether it is necessary to cite sensitive 
information and when choosing how to cite such content. 
                                                 
9 Our holding applies only to parties who are entitled "to 
have and keep a copy" of the PSI pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 972.15(4m) and reserves for another day the procedure a pro se 
defendant should follow, as those facts are not before us.  Of 
note, however, is that a defendant is entitled to view the PSI, 
but is not entitled "to have and keep a copy."  Any information 
from a PSI that a pro se defendant includes in an appellate 
brief will be from memory, which as a practical matter, likely 
limits the amount of detailed information the defendant could 
include.   
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
21 
 
¶37 The SPD and the State acknowledge that their ability 
to use the PSI is subject to the requirement that the PSI be 
kept confidential, see Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) and (4m).  They 
argue that this requirement is met by compliance with Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 809.81(8) 
(confidential 
documents 
"shall 
refer 
to 
individuals only by their first name and the first initial of 
their last name").   
¶38 The court of appeals concluded that confidentiality 
for the purposes of Wis. Stat. § 972.15 is broader than using a 
person's first name and the first initial of their last name.  
Instead, the court of appeals reasoned that the drafting 
comments to § 972.15 suggest that confidentiality means limiting 
access to the PSI and requiring circuit court permission to 
access the PSI after sentencing. 
¶39 We agree with the SPD and the State that the 
confidentiality requirement of Wis. Stat. § 972.15 requires 
compliance with Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.81(8) ("Every notice of 
appeal or other document that is filed in the court and that is 
required by law to be confidential shall refer to individuals 
only by their first name and the first initial of their last 
name.").  See also Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(1)(g) and (2) 
(requiring reference to individuals by first name and last 
initial in appellate briefs when record is confidential).  
Parties should 
be 
mindful that a PSI may also contain 
information that must be kept confidential for other reasons, 
for example medical information, see Wis. Stat. § 146.82 ("All 
patient 
health 
care 
records 
shall 
remain 
confidential"), 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
22 
 
information from child welfare and termination of parental 
rights 
(TPR) 
proceedings, 
see 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 48.78, 
48.396(2)(dr), 
and 
information 
from 
juvenile 
delinquency 
proceedings, see Wis. Stat. §§ 938.78, 938.396(2g)(dr).  These 
examples are by no means exhaustive regarding the treatment or 
forms of confidential information that may be contained in a 
PSI. 
 In addition, because of the sensitive nature of 
information contained in a PSI, counsel should be prudent when 
using any information from a PSI regardless of whether they are 
statutorily-required to so measure their actions.     
¶40 Our conclusion that confidentiality under Wis. Stat. 
§ 972.15 requires compliance with Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.81 is 
consistent with how confidentiality is interpreted in other 
areas of the law, for example TPR and juvenile cases.  Under 
Wis. Stat. §§ 48.78 and 938.78, there is a general rule, subject 
to 
exceptions, 
that 
documents 
pertaining 
to 
individuals 
receiving care or in custody under Chapters 48 or 938 are 
confidential. 
 
In 
appellate 
briefs, 
attorneys 
maintain 
confidentiality 
by 
compliance 
with 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ (Rule) 809.19(1): 
Section 809.19(1)(g) requires the appellant's 
brief to refer to 'an individual by first name and 
last initial rather than by his or her full name when 
the record is required by law to be confidential.'  
Confidential cases generally involve juveniles (e.g. 
cases 
waiving 
juveniles 
into 
adult 
court 
or 
terminating 
parental 
rights). 
 
See 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 48.78, 938.78. 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
23 
 
Michael S. Heffernan, Appellate Practice and Procedure in 
Wisconsin, Ch. 11, at 16 (5th ed. 2011).  Our interpretation of 
confidentiality in Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) and (4m) is consistent 
with the confidentiality rules for TPR and juvenile cases.   
¶41 We disagree with the court of appeals' determination 
that a PSI is confidential because it is not a public record and 
access to the PSI is limited.  A PSI is not a public document.  
However, that alone does not end the analysis.  The information 
contained in a PSI may be critical to adequately forward or 
respond to an issue on appeal.  Such a document may serve a 
legitimate purpose and be admissible in litigation, yet not be a 
public record.  While a PSI may not be a public record and may 
contain confidential and sensitive information, that alone 
cannot render it unreachable in the context of appellate 
litigation.  In fact, information in the PSI may be seminal to 
the appeal.  The court of appeals determined that the official 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
24 
 
comments to the statute support its interpretation.10  We 
disagree. 
 
Although 
those 
comments 
mention 
specific 
authorization to access the PSI, the comments were written 
before Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m) was in existence.  The statute 
answers 
the 
question 
of 
access; 
§ 972.15(4m) 
allows 
the 
defendant's attorney and the State "to have and keep a copy" of 
the PSI.  We find further support for our interpretation——that 
confidentiality means redacting information rather than limiting 
access——from analogous case law prioritizing access to documents 
for 
parties 
to 
the 
case 
over 
confidentiality. 
 
The 
confidentiality of a record does not always trump access to and 
use of the record.11   
                                                 
10  The official comment to Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) states: 
"The information in such reports is often unverified and would 
in many cases, even if true, cause irreparable harm to 
informants or the defendant.  The information may, of course, 
upon specific authorization of the court, be made available to 
any agencies, courts or individuals which have a legitimate need 
for it."  See § 63, ch. 255, Laws of 1969.  The same Committee 
Note stated that the confidentiality requirement of § 972.15 was 
consistent with ABA standards "that presentence reports should 
not be public records."  Id.; Am. Bar Ass'n Project on Minimum 
Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Sentencing 
Alternatives and Procedures (Approved Draft, 1968), ABA Advisory 
Committee on Sentencing and Review, § 4.3, at 210-11 (stating 
that the PSI should not be a public record, but should be 
available to the parties).  There is a distinction between a 
document being a public record and a document being available 
for litigation.   
11 For example, the court of appeals has held that Wis. 
Stat. § 967.06, allowing a public defender to access "any 
transcript or court record," gave the public defender access to 
a juvenile court record despite the rule in Wis. Stat. § 48.396, 
which provided that the record in juvenile cases is closed to 
anyone without judicial permission.  State ex rel. S.M.O. v. 
Resheske, 110 Wis. 2d 447, 454, 329 N.W.2d 275 (Ct. App. 1982). 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
25 
 
¶42 To be clear, our decision does not grant parties 
unfettered discretion to reference any and all portions of a 
PSI; the parties may reference information from a PSI only if it 
is relevant to an issue on appeal.  See State v. Comstock, 168 
Wis. 2d 915, 923, 485 N.W.2d 354 (1992) ("[T]he dissent admits 
that it recites numerous facts drawn from the presentence 
investigation report.  We disapprove of this practice.") 
(citation omitted); State v. McCallum, 208 Wis. 2d 463, 480 n.3, 
561 N.W.2d 707 (1997) ("McCallum's motion to strike references 
to the defendant's presentence investigation report from the 
State's brief is granted." (citing Comstock, 168 Wis. 2d at 923-
25)).  This test is narrower than the general test of relevancy 
under Wis. Stat. § 904.01 because information may be relevant to 
the circuit court proceedings but not relevant to an issue on 
appeal, and therefore inappropriate to cite in an appellate 
brief.   
¶43 We caution practitioners to exercise sound discretion 
when citing information from a PSI.  A PSI may contain very 
sensitive information.  See Wis. Admin. Code §§ DOC 328.27, 
328.29 (Dec. 2006) (stating that PSI should include criminal 
record, correctional institutional record, victim's statement, 
family information, personal history, and identity of sources of 
information).  Indeed, with electronic access to filed briefs, 
counsel must be even more vigilant with respect to how best to 
cite sensitive information.  Clearly it is much more difficult 
to remove information from the public domain once it has been 
included in an appellate brief.  Counsel and circuit courts must 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
26 
 
be even more aware of the responsibility to redact a PSI at the 
trial court level before the case gets to the appellate level.  
The circuit court has the significant power to "conceal the 
identity of any person who provided information" in the PSI.  
Wis. Stat. § 972.15(3).  Certainly, if appellate counsel, in the 
process of writing an appellate brief, is unsure whether 
information from a PSI can be included, he or she can ask the 
court of appeals for guidance or can file the brief under seal12 
until the court of appeals can decide whether the brief complies 
with rules of confidentiality.  Opposing counsel could also move 
to strike inappropriate parts of the appellate brief.  See 
McCallum, 208 Wis. 2d at 480 n.3.13 
                                                 
12 Court records are open for public inspection.  See Wis. 
Stat. § 59.20(3) (Every "clerk of the circuit court . . . shall 
open to the examination of any person all books and papers 
required to be kept in his or her office").  "Public records may 
be sealed (1) if a statute authorizes the sealing of otherwise 
public records, (2) if disclosure infringes a constitutional 
right or (3) if the administration of justice requires it."  
City of Madison v. Appeals Comm. of the Madison Human Servs. 
Comm'n, 122 Wis. 2d 488, 491, 361 N.W.2d 734 (Ct. App. 1984) 
(citing 
State 
ex 
rel. 
Bilder 
v. 
Twp. 
of 
Delavan, 
112 
Wis. 2d 539, 554-56, 334 N.W.2d 252 (1983)).  
13 The dissent's proposed procedure could provide further 
guidance to parties and lower courts.  The dissent's proposed 
procedure, 
however, 
originates 
from 
legislation 
that 
is 
currently before the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau.  
The proposed procedure is not otherwise grounded on any current 
statute.  The legislature has provided rules and procedures that 
are applicable to the dissemination of PSIs in Wis. Stat. 
§ 972.15, and it is within the province of the legislature to 
determine if procedural change is appropriate.  Apparently that 
opportunity may occur in the near future.  The majority declines 
to usurp the role of the legislature by appearing to enact 
legislation through a court opinion.   
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
27 
 
IV. CONCLUSION 
¶44 We conclude that the SPD has not met the requirements 
for issuance of a supervisory writ.  However, pursuant to our 
superintending and administrative authority, we conclude that in 
a merit appeal, parties who are entitled "to have and keep a 
copy" of a PSI pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m) need not ask 
any court's permission to reference a PSI in an appellate brief.  
Parties may reference information from the PSI that does not 
reveal confidential information and that is relevant to the 
appeal.  We urge counsel to be abundantly cautious when deciding 
whether it is necessary to cite sensitive information and when 
choosing how to cite such content. 
By 
the 
Court.—Rights 
declared; 
relief 
granted, 
case 
proceeds accordingly at the court of appeals.  
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
1
 
¶45 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (dissenting).  I agree with 
the majority that the requirements for a supervisory writ are 
not met.  I also agree with the majority that it is appropriate 
to employ our superintending and administrative powers here. 
¶46 I part ways with the majority, however, because I 
conclude that we should employ those powers in a manner that 
establishes a simple rule that provides guidance to courts, 
parties, and counsel and that protects from harm those who 
provide information in the presentence investigation report 
(PSI).  Because the majority's approach appears at odds with the 
words of the statute and provides neither adequate guidance nor 
protection, I respectfully dissent. 
I 
¶47 Having determined that it will not grant a supervisory 
writ but will instead exercise the court's superintending and 
administrative powers, the majority turns to interpreting Wis. 
Stat. § 972.15.  It correctly notes that a defendant has a due 
process right to be sentenced upon accurate information, a right 
to disclosure of all information in the PSI, and a right to 
challenge any statement in the PSI that the defendant believes 
to be inaccurate or incomplete.  Majority op., ¶20.   
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
2
¶48 The majority concludes that parties1 are not required 
to get permission from any court before referencing a PSI in an 
appellate brief.  It opines that there is "no quantifiable 
benefit" if parties are required to request permission of the 
circuit court to reference a PSI.  Id., ¶¶25, 28.  It likewise 
eschews any benefit from requiring the parties to obtain 
permission from the court of appeals: "requiring court approval 
provides little, if any, guarantees that information will be 
treated any differently than if no motion were required."  Id., 
¶35.   
¶49 Instead of requiring permission, the majority directs 
that parties may "reference information from the PSI that does 
not reveal confidential information and that is relevant to the 
appeal."  Id., ¶36.   It provides examples of what it calls 
"confidential 
information," 
listing 
medical 
information, 
information from child welfare and termination of parental 
rights proceedings, and information from juvenile delinquency 
proceedings.  Id., ¶39.   
¶50 Under the majority's interpretation, nothing more is 
required than what is already mandated by those other statutory 
provisions that govern "confidential information."  Id., ¶36.  
                                                 
1 The term "parties" in the majority's analysis appears to 
refer to defense counsel and counsel for the State.  See 
majority op., ¶20.  However, it is the State and the defendant 
that normally are considered to be the parties in a criminal 
action——not defense counsel and counsel for the State.  The 
appearance that the majority means counsel when it uses the term 
"parties" arises from its reference to "have and keep."  
Wisconsin Stat. § 972.15(4m) allows the district attorney and 
the defendant's attorney to have and keep a copy of the PSI.  A 
defendant is allowed only to view the PSI but not keep a copy.   
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
3
In the event that there is uncertainty as to whether the 
information complies with those confidentiality statutes, it 
merely suggests that counsel "ask the court of appeals for 
guidance."  Id., ¶43.  It additionally suggests that counsel 
should consider "fil[ing] the brief under seal" until the court 
of appeals can decide if the information fits its definition of 
"confidential information."  Id.  Finally, the majority leaves 
the decision of whether to disclose "sensitive" information in a 
PSI to the "prudent" and "sound discretion" of counsel.  Id., 
¶¶39, 43.  
II 
¶51 Our job is to interpret and apply the statutes as they 
are written by the legislature.  We should not replace a clear 
legislative mandate with our own version of the statute.   
¶52  The text of Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) (2009-10)2 states 
that "after sentencing the presentence investigation report 
shall 
be 
confidential." 
 
Instead 
of 
following 
a 
clear 
legislative mandate, the majority turns the statutory language 
on its head and treats a PSI not as a confidential document but 
as a non-confidential document that may contain certain pieces 
of otherwise confidential information.  See majority op., ¶¶19, 
29, 36, 39, 40, 43.   
¶53 The majority's contradictory interpretation of Wis. 
Stat. § 972.15(4) appears to conflict with this court's prior 
application of the statute.  In State v. Comstock, 168 Wis. 2d 
                                                 
2 All subsequent statutory references are to the 2009-10 
version of the Wisconsin Statutes, unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
4
915, 485 N.W.2d 354 (1992), the majority of this court chided a 
dissenting opinion for inappropriately citing certain facts from 
a PSI.  The court quoted Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) and its 
statement that a PSI is confidential.  Id. at 923-25.  Nowhere 
in the Comstock court's discussion of a PSI did it imply that 
the PSI as a whole is not a confidential document.3   
¶54 Furthermore, the majority provides inadequate guidance 
to courts, parties, and counsel.  Although the majority provides 
a limited list of information made confidential by other 
statutes, it provides no guidance regarding the volumes of other 
information that may be included in a PSI.   
¶55 Additionally, the majority's analysis appears narrowly 
tailored to apply only to parties who are represented by 
counsel, although the statute covers non-represented defendants.  
The holding framed by the majority provides that "parties who 
are entitled 'to have and keep' a copy of a PSI pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 972.15(4m) need not ask any court's permission to 
reference a PSI in an appellate brief."  Majority op., ¶3.  
                                                 
3 This court has treated an entire PSI as confidential on 
other occasions.  In addition to Comstock, the court discussed 
the meaning of the term "confidential" as it is used in Wis. 
Stat. § 972.15(4) in State v. Parent, 2006 WI 132, ¶26, 298 Wis. 
2d 63, 725 N.W.2d 915.  In that case, the court determined that 
the defendant must keep "the information in the report"——not 
some information in the report——confidential in the context of a 
no merit appeal.  Id., ¶50.  Similarly, this court addressed 
whether 
the 
confidentiality 
requirement 
in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 972.15(4) is extended to sentencing memoranda in State v. 
Greve, 2004 WI 69, 272 Wis. 2d 444, 681 N.W.2d 479.  The court 
in Greve also appears to have treated the entire PSI as 
confidential.  Id., ¶17. 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
5
Wisconsin Stat. § 972.15(4m) allows counsel to "have and keep a 
copy" of the PSI. 
¶56 Defendants, however, may not "have and keep" a copy of 
the PSI.  They may only "view" it.  Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m); 
State v. Parent, 2006 WI 132, ¶50, 298 Wis. 2d 63, 725 N.W.2d 
915.  Given the majority's narrowly-framed holding, it is 
unclear what a pro se defendant is to do on appeal.  Is a pro se 
defendant 
likewise 
supposed 
to 
know 
what 
confidential 
information may or may not be used in an appellate brief?  Is 
the decision of whether to use sensitive information in the 
brief left to the "prudent" and "sound discretion" of the pro se 
defendant?  
¶57 Because the majority fails to set forth any standards 
for 
determining 
what 
"sensitive" 
information 
should 
be 
permissible to use in an appellate brief, counsel (and perhaps 
pro se defendants) have no principled manner in which they may 
evaluate whether information in a PSI should be used other than 
their "prudent" and "sound discretion."  What happens if their 
"prudent" and "sound discretion" is overshadowed by their 
zealous advocacy?  What are the consequences for the parties or 
counsel? 
¶58 The majority's inadequate guidance on these questions 
may produce negative consequences for those who have provided 
information in the PSI and provide inadequate protection from 
harm.  A PSI commonly includes information that would not fall 
within the majority's list of "confidential" information.  For 
example, the victim's statement often reveals intimate details 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
6
of the social, economic, physical, and psychological effects of 
the crime.  Furthermore, the family information contained in a 
PSI could set forth what would otherwise be considered private 
family matters, detailing the lives of individuals whose sole 
involvement with the crime is that they are related to the 
offender.   
¶59 Such information does not appear to be protected from 
disclosure under the majority's approach.  Majority op., ¶39.  
Individuals may be held up to ridicule as a result of 
inappropriate use of information in a PSI.  Additionally, the 
disclosure of such information may put an individual's life or 
health in danger, creating safety issues. 
¶60 At first blush it may appear that relevancy provides a 
meaningful limitation, but the broad definition of relevancy 
provides inadequate protection.  Relevant evidence is evidence 
that has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is 
of consequence to the determination of the action more probable 
or less probable than it would be without the evidence."  Wis. 
Stat. § 904.01; State v. Payano, 2009 WI 86, ¶68, 320 Wis. 2d 
348, 768 N.W.2d 832.4  The relevancy requirement offers no real 
safeguard for the information contained in a PSI that does not 
fall within the majority's list of "confidential" information. 
                                                 
4 The majority characterizes its relevancy test as a 
"narrower" inquiry than that which is set forth in Wis. Stat. 
§ 904.01 because the issues in a case are often narrowed on 
appeal.  Majority op., ¶42.  Nevertheless, its standard for 
relevancy appears to be the same standard as the one defined in 
the relevancy statute, Wis. Stat. § 904.01.   
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
7
¶61 The majority's inadequate guidance and protection 
leads to a nebulous procedure.  This court should establish a 
simple procedure that clearly provides guidance and that 
adequately protects those who provide information in a PSI.  
III 
¶62 Instead of the majority's approach to statutory 
construction, I would interpret the statute to establish a 
simple procedure that provides clear guidance to courts, 
parties, and counsel and protects from harm those who provide 
information in the PSI.   
1. The entire PSI is confidential by statute. 
¶63 As I see it, the entire PSI is confidential by 
statute.  Wisconsin Stat. § 972.15(4) provides that "after 
sentencing 
the 
presentence 
investigation 
report 
shall 
be 
confidential and shall not be made available to any person 
except upon specific authorization of the court."  It does not 
limit confidentiality of the PSI to items that fit under matters 
that are confidential as defined by other statutes.   
¶64 Although 
this 
court 
has 
not 
previously 
defined 
"confidential" as it is used in the PSI statute, it has set 
forth general guidelines for what the term "confidential" means 
when it is used in a statute.  See, e.g., Sands v. Whitnall 
School Dist., 2008 WI 89, ¶32, 312 Wis. 2d 1, 754 N.W.2d 439.  
Confidential data is data that is "meant to be kept secret."  
Id., ¶32 (quoting Custodian of Records for LTSB v. State, 2004 
WI 65, ¶15, 272 Wis. 2d 208, 680 N.W.2d 792).   
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
8
¶65 The term "confidential" generally contemplates that 
confidential documents will be limited in the scope of their 
disclosure.  See Custodian of Records for LTSB, 272 Wis. 2d 208, 
¶15.  Similarly, because the statutory language provides that 
the PSI is confidential, the disclosure of its contents must be 
carefully circumscribed. 
2. To the extent that information in the PSI has already 
been made public in the circuit court at a sentencing or 
post sentencing hearing, the information in a transcript 
from that hearing may be used in an appellate brief. 
¶66 Although 
the 
entire 
PSI 
is 
confidential, 
the 
confidentiality requirement set forth in Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) 
must sometimes yield to the defendant's due process rights.5  One 
circumstance where the confidentiality requirement must yield is 
when the PSI has already been made public in the circuit court. 
¶67 Any information in a PSI that is made public by the 
circuit court at a sentencing or post sentencing hearing is 
already public information and may be used in an appellate 
brief.  For example, a circuit court may refer to information in 
a PSI when it is explaining on the record how the sentence's 
component parts promote the sentencing objectives.  State v. 
Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶¶47, 50, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197.  
                                                 
5 A defendant's due process rights include a right to be 
sentenced upon accurate information, a right to disclosure of 
the information in the PSI, and a right to challenge any 
statement in the PSI that the defendant believes to be 
inaccurate 
or 
incomplete. 
 
Majority 
op., 
¶20 
(citations 
omitted).   
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
9
The 
transcript 
from 
the 
hearing 
containing 
statements 
referencing the PSI may be used in an appellate brief.6 
                                                 
6 This is consistent with part of a proposal from the 
Wisconsin Judicial Council that would change the way PSIs are 
prepared, used, distributed, and kept as records.  The Wisconsin 
Judicial Council's principal statutory responsibilities are to 
study and make recommendations relating to the pleading, 
practices, procedures, organization, jurisdiction, and methods 
of administration of Wisconsin courts.  Wis. Stat. § 758.13.   
The 
Wisconsin 
Judicial 
Council 
is 
a 
21-member 
body 
representing a broad cross-section of interests.  A member of 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court sits on the Wisconsin Judicial 
Council.  Currently serving on the Judicial Council is Justice 
Patience Roggensack.  Other members of the Judicial Council 
include a court of appeals judge, four circuit court judges, one 
district attorney, three members of the state bar, two citizen 
members, 
and 
all 
of 
the 
following 
individuals 
or 
their 
designees: the Director of State Courts, the chairs of the 
Senate and Assembly standing committees with jurisdiction over 
judicial affairs, the Attorney General, the chief of the 
Legislative Reference Bureau, the deans of the law schools of 
the University of Wisconsin and Marquette University, the State 
Public Defender, and the president-elect of the state bar.  Id.; 
Wisconsin 
Judicial 
Council, 
http://www.wicourts.gov/courts/committees/judicialcouncil/index.
htm (last visited Apr. 1, 2013).   
In accordance with its statutory duties, the Judicial 
Council widely distributed for analysis its proposal that would 
change the procedures relating to PSIs.  See Minutes of the 
Meeting of the Wisconsin Judicial Council (Jan. 18, 2013), 
available 
at 
http://www.wicourts.gov/courts/committees/judicialcouncil/docs/m
inutes0113.pdf (last visited Apr. 1, 2013) (discussing the 
circulation of a PSI proposal for fiscal estimates and approving 
a 
request 
to 
release 
copies 
of 
fiscal 
estimates 
before 
introduction of a PSI bill).  Among the entities solicited for 
comment was the Legislative Committee of the Wisconsin Judicial 
Conference, chaired by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.  The 
proposal was distributed by Chief Justice Abrahamson to this 
court.   
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
10
¶68 However, because the PSI is confidential, Wis. Stat. 
§ 809.81(8) requires that parties and counsel shall refer to 
individuals named in the PSI "only by their first name and the 
first initial of their last name."  Even where a party or 
counsel may use information in a PSI, the statute mandates that 
the party or counsel refer to only the first name and first 
initial of the last name of the individuals named in the PSI. 
3. Court permission must be obtained for any information not 
previously made public at the circuit court. 
¶69 Sometimes a party or counsel may determine that it is 
necessary to use information in a PSI that is not a part of the 
public record.  Under those circumstances, the party or counsel 
should be required to get court permission before using the 
information. 
4. As a practical matter, the location of the record should 
dictate which court to ask. 
¶70 In determining which court to move for permission to 
use information in a PSI, parties and counsel should be guided 
by the practical reality of where the record is located.  When 
the record is at the circuit court prior to the initiation of an 
appeal, the party or counsel should request permission to use 
information in the PSI from the circuit court.  Conversely, when 
the appeal is initiated and the record is already with the court 
                                                                                                                                                             
All meetings of the Wisconsin Judicial Council and its 
committees are open to the public.  Wisconsin Judicial Council, 
http://www.wicourts.gov/courts/committees/judicialcouncil/docs/a
genda0213.pdf (last visited Apr. 1, 2013). 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
11
of appeals, parties or counsel should request permission to use 
information in the PSI from the court of appeals. 
¶71 In determining whether to grant permission to use 
information in a PSI under the statute, courts must be 
constantly mindful of the due process rights of the defendant.  
(See, e.g., a defendant has a 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.)  Courts should also consider the 
nature of the information that would be exposed to public 
scrutiny.  Some information in a PSI is separately made 
confidential by other statutes and those statutes may require 
special procedures.7  Courts must employ those additional 
procedures before authorizing the citation of information that 
is made confidential by other statutes.   
¶72 Additionally, courts should be wary about authorizing 
the citation of information that will hold an individual up to 
ridicule, endanger the safety of persons named in the PSI, or is 
not needed to advance the claims raised on appeal.   Individuals 
who provide information in the PSI should be provided adequate 
protection from harm.        
¶73  The above interpretation of the statute is a simple 
procedure that (1) provides guidance to courts, parties, and 
counsel; (2) protects those who provide information in a PSI; 
                                                 
7 See, e.g., Wis. Stat. §§ 146.82 (governing patient health 
care records), 48.78 (governing agency child welfare records), 
48.396 
(governing 
law 
enforcement 
officers' 
records 
of 
children), 938.78 (governing agency records of individuals in 
the care or legal custody of the agency). 
No. 
 2012AP544-W  
 
 
 
12
and 
(3) 
is 
consistent 
with 
the 
statutory 
directive 
of 
confidentiality.  Unfortunately, the majority fails in all three 
respects.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 
¶74 I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE SHIRLEY S. 
ABRAHAMSON and JUSTICE DAVID T. PROSSER, JR. join this dissent.