Title: State v. Michael J. Parent
Citation: 2006 WI 132
Docket Number: 2005AP000661-CRNM
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 21, 2006

2006 WI 132 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP661-CRNM 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
     v. 
Michael J. Parent, 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 21, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 11, 2006   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Eau Claire   
 
JUDGE: 
William M. Gabler 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant there were briefs and oral 
argument by William E. Schmaal, assistant state public defender. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by 
Gregory M. Weber, with whom on the brief was Peggy A. 
Lautenschlager, attorney general. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Meredith J. Ross and 
William E. Rosales, Madison, on behalf of the Frank J. Remington 
Center, University of Wisconsin Law School, and there was oral 
argument by Meredith J. Ross. 
 
 
2006 WI 132
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP661-CRNM  
(L.C. No. 
2003CF767) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael J. Parent, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 21, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
APPEAL from an order of the Circuit Court for Eau Claire 
County, William M. Gabler, Judge.    Vacated and cause remanded 
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.     
 
¶1 
LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.   This case is before the 
court on certification by the court of appeals, pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
809.61 
(2003-04).1 
 
Michael 
J. 
Parent 
(Parent) appeals from a circuit court order denying his request 
for a copy of his presentence investigation (PSI) report.  
                                                 
1 All references are to the 2003-04 version of the statutes 
unless otherwise noted.   
 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
2 
 
Parent requests a copy of the PSI report for purposes of a no-
merit appeal2 of his judgment of conviction for one count of 
felony escape, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 946.42(3)(a), and two 
counts of felony theft, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.20.  
¶2 
In October 2005, we vacated an order of the court of 
appeals rejecting a motion of Parent that requested a copy of 
the PSI report, and remanded the matter to the court of appeals 
to determine whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its 
discretion in denying the defendant's request.  Subsequently, 
the court of appeals certified the case to this court to address 
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 of Wisconsin (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.   
¶3 
The parties cast their dispute as a conflict between 
two statutes:  Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d), which provides 
that appointed appellate counsel who files a no-merit report in 
the defendant's appeal must serve a copy of the record on the 
defendant, and Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4), which provided generally 
that PSI reports are confidential and may be disclosed only upon 
authorization of the circuit court.   
                                                 
2 Defendant-appellant, Michael J. Parent, has appealed to 
the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32 and 
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
3 
 
¶4 
Subsequent to our October 2005 remand to the court of 
appeals, the legislature changed the confidentiality provisions 
of Wis. Stat. § 972.15 by amending subsection (4) and creating 
subsection (4m) to § 972.15.  2005 Wis. Act 311, §§ 1 and 2 
(effective April 21, 2006).  This change provides that an 
unrepresented defendant may have personal access to the PSI 
report after sentencing without court authorization.  It further 
provides that an unrepresented defendant may not possess a copy 
of the PSI report and must keep its contents confidential.   
¶5 
We now vacate the circuit court's order denying 
Parent's request for a copy of the PSI report and remand this 
matter to the circuit court to apply the most recent version of 
Wis. Stat. § 972.15 (2005-06).  We conclude that, under the 
newly created § 972.15(4m), Parent is entitled to a meaningful 
viewing of the PSI report, but may not retain a copy of it.  
However, this right is subject to the requirement that the 
defendant keep the information in the report confidential, and 
the circuit court's prerogative to redact any identifying 
information of persons who provided information for the report.  
Finally, we conclude that the attorney general is often the 
State's successor to the district attorney for purposes of 
§ 972.15, and that under § 972.15(4) and (4m), the attorney 
general must make its request to obtain a copy of the PSI report 
and disclose its contents in the State's brief after sentencing 
with the circuit court.     
 
 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
4 
 
I 
¶6 
On December 11, 2003, a seven-count criminal complaint 
was filed in Eau Claire County Circuit Court against Parent, 
alleging 
five 
counts 
of 
felony 
theft, 
contrary 
to 
Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(a) and (3)(c); one count of misdemeanor 
theft, contrary to § 943.20(1)(a) and (3)(a); and one count of 
obstructing an officer, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1), all 
as an habitual offender pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 939.62.  The 
complaint was later amended to consolidate a charge filed in 
Oneida County of one count of felony escape, contrary to 
Wis. Stat. § 946.42(3)(a).   
¶7 
Parent reached a plea agreement with the State in 
which he agreed to enter pleas of guilty to the felony escape 
charge and to two counts of felony theft.  The State agreed to 
drop the repeat offender allegation, and to dismiss and read-in 
the 
remaining 
charges, 
subject 
to 
full 
restitution.  
Additionally, the State agreed not to charge additional offenses 
allegedly committed by Parent in Trempealeau and St. Croix 
Counties.   
 ¶8 The Eau Claire County Circuit Court, the Honorable 
William M. Gabler, conducted a personal colloquy of Parent and 
accepted his pleas of guilty to the three enumerated counts.  
The circuit court ordered a presentence investigation, which was 
later filed.  At sentencing, Parent and his counsel each told 
the court that they believed that the PSI report contained no 
significant factual inaccuracies.  The court sentenced Parent to 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
5 
 
11 years of initial confinement plus 11 years of extended 
supervision, to be served consecutive to an ongoing sentence. 
¶9 
Parent's appointed appellate counsel filed a no-merit 
notice of appeal. In a letter to the circuit court, Parent's 
appellate counsel requested a copy of the PSI report, explaining 
that his client "believe[d] that it [would] support his position 
in the appeal."  Counsel asserted that Parent was entitled to a 
copy of the report under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d) and 
(e).3  Counsel enclosed with the letter a draft order that would 
have required Parent to keep the contents of the PSI report 
confidential except for purposes of the no-merit appeal.   
¶10 The circuit court wrote the prosecutor and the author 
of the PSI report to solicit their reactions to Parent's 
                                                 
3 Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1) provides, in pertinent part: 
 
(d) 
Service 
of 
copy 
of 
no-merit 
report, 
transcript, 
and 
circuit 
court 
case 
record. 
The 
attorney shall serve a copy of the no-merit report on 
the person and shall file a statement in the court of 
appeals that service has been made upon the person. 
The attorney shall also serve upon the person a copy 
of the transcript and circuit court case record within 
5 days after receipt of a request for the transcript 
and circuit court case record from the person and 
shall file a statement in the court of appeals that 
service has been made on the person. 
 
(e) Response to no-merit report. The person may 
file a response to the no-merit report within 30 days 
after service of the no-merit report. If the person 
files a response, the clerk shall, within 5 days after 
the filing of the response, send a copy of the 
response to the attorney who filed the no-merit 
report. 
  
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
6 
 
request.  The prosecutor suggested that the court require that 
Parent show a sufficient need for the report, and that if such a 
showing were made, to allow Parent to view the PSI report but 
not to keep a copy of it.  The PSI report author informed the 
circuit court that the report did not contain "sensitive 
information that Mr. Parent could use against other inmates or 
any victims."  He added:  "I'm inclined to think that Mr. Parent 
is abusing [his] rights [of appeal] to annoy others and/or draw 
attention to himself.  I state this not as fact but only my 
impression."   
¶11 The circuit court ultimately denied Parent's request 
for a copy of the PSI report in a March 18, 2005, letter to 
Parent's appellate counsel.  The circuit court stated that it 
"[could not] imagine any legitimate reason why Mr. Parent would 
want a copy of his pre-sentence investigation."  It noted that 
Parent did not have any significant factual objections to the 
PSI report at sentencing.  The circuit court concluded:  "I 
agree with [the PSI report author's] assessment that Mr. Parent 
is engaging in conduct to draw attention to himself. . . .  I 
think giving Mr. Parent a copy of the pre-sentence investigation 
report will only encourage Mr. Parent to raise issues that are 
without merit."    
¶12 Parent filed a motion with the court of appeals 
requesting personal access to the presentence report, explaining 
that a similar request was denied by the circuit court.  The 
court of appeals denied the motion, stating:  
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
7 
 
Under Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4), a defendant does not 
have access to a presentence report unless ordered by 
"the court."  "The court" means the circuit court.  
See Wis. Stat. § 967.02(7).  The circuit court has 
refused 
to 
allow 
the 
appellant 
access 
to 
the 
presentence report.  A client's right to inspect the 
record for purposes of responding to the no-merit 
report under Wis. Stat. §  (Rule) 809.32 does not 
supercede [sic] the trial court's authority to seal 
the presentence report and prevent the defendant from 
having access to it.   
¶13 Parent's appellate counsel petitioned this court for a 
writ of supervisory control pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
809.71, and for temporary relief.  Counsel for the court of 
appeals conceded that the court of appeals erred by not properly 
reviewing the circuit court's denial of the request to disclose 
the PSI report, and recommended that we vacate the court of 
appeals' order.  We did so by an order dated October 14, 2005, 
and remanded for the court of appeals to review the circuit 
court's order for an erroneous exercise of discretion. 
¶14 On remand, the court of appeals directed the parties 
to brief the question of whether the circuit court's denial of 
Parent's request was an erroneous exercise of its discretion.  
Ultimately, the 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 circuit 
court.  We granted certification to address these issues.  
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
8 
 
II 
¶15 This case requires us to interpret provisions of the 
Wisconsin 
Statutes 
relating 
to 
presentence 
investigation 
reports, and court rules pertaining to no-merit appeals.  The 
interpretation of statutes and court rules present questions of 
law that we review independently.  State v. Sorenson, 2000 WI 
43, ¶15, 234 Wis. 2d 648, 611 N.W.2d 240. 
¶16 When construing statutes and court rules, we assume 
that the intent of the legislature or this court is expressed in 
a statute or court rule.  State v. Denis L.R., 2005 WI 110, ¶35, 
283 Wis. 2d 358, 699 N.W.2d 154 (citation omitted).  Therefore, 
our analysis begins with the language of the statute or rule.  
Id.  In general, we give statutory language its common, 
ordinary, and accepted meaning.  Id.  "Further, we consider 
language 'in the context in which it is used; not in isolation 
but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of 
surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to 
avoid absurd or unreasonable results.'"  Id.  (quoting State ex 
rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶46, 
271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110).  If this analysis yields no 
ambiguity, our inquiry ends.  Id.   
III 
¶17 Article I, Section 21(1) of the Wisconsin Constitution 
and Wis. Stat. § 808.03(1) guarantee a person convicted of a 
crime in Wisconsin the right to appeal his or her conviction to 
the court of appeals.  The United States Supreme Court has held 
that a person appealing his or her conviction has a Sixth 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
9 
 
Amendment right to counsel on the first appeal, Douglas v. 
California, 372 U.S. 353, 356-57 (1963), and that this right 
includes the right to effective assistance of counsel.  Evitts 
v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396-97 (1985).   
¶18 "[A]n indigent defendant has the same right to 
effective representation by an active advocate as a defendant 
who can afford to retain counsel of his or her choice."  McCoy 
v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 486 U.S. 429, 435 (1988).  Under 
Wisconsin law, an indigent defendant who files a notice of 
intent to appeal from a conviction is appointed appellate 
counsel.  See Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.30.   
¶19 Appellate counsel, whether retained or appointed, has 
an ethical duty not to advance frivolous arguments before the 
appellate tribunal.  See McCoy, 486 U.S. at 436.  If retained 
counsel, upon a thorough review of the record, determines that 
no meritorious appellate issues exist, counsel must advise his 
or her client that it would be a waste of money to appeal the 
conviction, and it would be unethical for the attorney to do so.  
Id. at 437.  The situation is more complicated for appointed 
counsel, who cannot simply withdraw without leave of the 
appellate court.  Appointed counsel must first advise the court 
of his or her opinion that the appeal is frivolous, thus placing 
counsel's duty to exercise candor toward the tribunal in 
conflict with the client's Sixth Amendment right to effective 
assistance of counsel.  Id.    
¶20 The 
no-merit 
procedure 
set 
forth 
in 
Anders 
v. 
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), seeks to reconcile this 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
10 
 
conflict between the right to counsel and an attorney's ethical 
obligations.  In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held 
that when appointed counsel determines after a "conscientious 
examination" of the record that an appeal would be "wholly 
frivolous," counsel "should so advise the court and request 
permission to withdraw."  Id. at 744.  However, counsel must 
also file with the court "a brief referring to anything in the 
record that might arguably support the appeal.  A copy of 
counsel's brief should be furnished the indigent and time 
allowed him to raise any points that he chooses."  Id.                      
¶21 Wisconsin codified 
and 
expanded 
Anders' 
no-merit 
procedure in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32.  The court of appeals 
in State v. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, ¶17, 281 Wis. 2d 157, 696 
N.W.2d 574, cogently set forth Wisconsin's no-merit procedure:  
 
First, appointed counsel examines the record for 
potential appellate issues of arguable merit.  See 
[Wis. Stat. §] 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.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45.  
Finally, the court's no merit decision sets forth the 
potential appellate issues and explains in turn why 
each has no arguable merit.   
¶22 Under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d), counsel filing 
a no-merit report must serve a copy of the no-merit report on 
the defendant, as well as "a copy of the transcript and circuit 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
11 
 
court case record" within five days of receiving a request from 
the defendant for the transcript and record.  One reason for 
this 
rule 
is 
that, 
under 
Anders 
and 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
809.32(1)(e), an indigent defendant has the right to respond to 
appointed counsel's no-merit report.  To properly respond to the 
no-merit report, the defendant must have access to the record in 
order "to raise any points that he chooses."  Anders, 386 U.S. 
at 744.  The PSI report is an essential part of this record.  
See Chambers v. State, 54 Wis. 2d 460, 465, 195 N.W.2d 477 
(1972); Embry v. State, 46 Wis. 2d 151, 158 n.2, 174 N.W.2d 521 
(1970).    
¶23 At the time of the circuit court's March 2005 denial 
of Parent's request for a copy of the PSI report, the 
subsections 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 972.154 
relating 
to 
the 
confidentiality of PSI reports read as follows: 
972.15 Presentence investigation. 
 . . . . 
(2) When a presentence investigation report has 
been received the judge shall disclose the contents of 
the report to the defendant's attorney and to the 
district attorney prior to sentencing.  When the 
defendant is not represented by an attorney, the 
contents shall be disclosed to the defendant. 
 
(3) The judge may conceal the identity of any 
person who provided information in the presentence 
investigation report. 
                                                 
4 This section has been subsequently amended.  See infra, 
¶¶31-35. 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
12 
 
 
(4) After sentencing, unless otherwise authorized 
under 
sub. 
(5) 
or 
ordered 
by 
the 
court, 
the 
presentence investigation report shall be confidential 
and shall not be made available to any person except 
upon specific authorization of the court.   
 
(5)  . . . The department [of corrections] may 
make the report available to other agencies or persons 
to 
use 
for 
purposes 
related 
to 
correctional 
programming, parole consideration, care and treatment, 
or research. . . .  
Wisconsin Stat. § 972.15 thus authorizes a court to order a 
presentence investigation after a conviction and establishes 
that 
presentence 
reports 
are 
confidential. 
Pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § 967.02(7), the "court" referenced in the above-
quoted 
passage 
is 
"the 
circuit 
court 
unless 
otherwise 
indicated."5 
IV 
 
¶24 The parties' dispute in this case centers on an 
apparent conflict between the confidentiality provisions of the 
former 
Wis. Stat. § 972.15 
and 
the 
requirements 
of 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d) 
and 
(e) 
that 
a 
no-merit 
appellant be served with a copy of the circuit court record and 
be given an opportunity to respond to the no-merit report.     
                                                 
5 Wisconsin Stat. § 967.02 provides, in pertinent part: 
Words and phrases defined.  In chs. 967 to 979, unless 
the context of a specific section manifestly requires 
a different construction: 
 . . . . 
 
(7) "Court" 
means 
the 
circuit 
court 
unless 
otherwise indicated.  
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
13 
 
¶25 Parent contends that Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d), 
which mandates that appointed counsel serve the circuit court 
record on the defendant, gives him an unqualified right to 
access the PSI report because it is a part of the circuit court 
record.  Parent asserts that the former Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4), 
which provided that the PSI report "shall be confidential and 
shall not be made available to any person" after sentencing 
except by authorization of the circuit court, is facially 
ambiguous when read in context with § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d).       
¶26 Parent contends that this ambiguity may be resolved by 
resort to a dictionary definition of "confidential."  Parent 
cites Webster's Third New International Dictionary 476 (1993), 
which 
defines 
"confidential" 
as 
follows: 
 
"communicated, 
conveyed, acted on, or practiced in confidence :  known  only to 
a limited few : not publicly disseminated."  Parent argues that 
under this definition, access to the PSI report is to be held by 
a "limited few," which includes the defendant, and excludes 
nonparties and the general public.  Since he has already seen 
the PSI report, he argues, the report cannot be "confidential" 
as to him.  
¶27 Parent observes that where two conflicting statutes 
apply to the same subject matter, the more specific statute 
usually controls.  See Marder v. Bd. of Regents of the 
University of Wis. System, 2005 WI 159, ¶23, 286 Wis. 2d 252, 
706 N.W.2d 110.  Parent contends that Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
809.32(1)(d) 
is 
more 
specific 
than 
the 
former 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
14 
 
Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) because § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d) applies 
only in the limited circumstances of a no-merit appeal.   
¶28 Parent 
finally 
contends 
that, 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(e), he may attempt to challenge 
numerous factual statements in the presentence report by way of 
his response to counsel's no-merit report. 
¶29 The State contends that Parent does not have an 
unqualified right to personally access his PSI report under 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d), and that the circuit court's 
denial of Parent's request to access the PSI report was not an 
erroneous exercise of its discretion.  The State agrees with 
Parent that the rule that when two provisions conflict, the more 
specific controls is applicable here, but asserts that the 
former 
Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) 
and 
not 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
809.32(1)(d) is the more specific provision.  The State so 
argues 
because 
the 
former 
§ 972.15(4) 
concerned 
the 
accessibility of one document contained in the record, the PSI 
report, whereas § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d) refers to the record in 
general.  It therefore contends that the former § 972.15(4) 
trumps § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d), and that a defendant subject to a 
no-merit procedure be required to seek the circuit court's 
authorization to access the PSI report.  The State proposes that 
a defendant in a no-merit appeal demonstrate a "substantial 
need" for the PSI report to be entitled to access it.     
¶30 We 
reject 
Parent's 
contention 
that 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d) confers an unqualified right 
for a no-merit appellant to access personally the PSI report.  
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
15 
 
We agree with the State that under Parent's expansive view of 
§ (Rule) 809.32(1)(d), sealed portions of a record would always 
be accessible to a defendant in a no-merit proceeding.  Such an 
interpretation would permit defendants to use the no-merit 
procedure to gain access to otherwise restricted sensitive 
information. 
We 
recognize 
that 
under 
the 
former 
Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4), the PSI report was confidential after 
sentencing and was "not . . . available to any person except 
upon specific authorization of the court."6  We further recognize 
that Wis. Stat. § 972.15(3) allows the judge to "conceal the 
identity 
of 
any 
person 
who 
provided 
information 
in 
the 
presentence report."  
¶31 But neither are we persuaded by the State's argument, 
which would place the onus on the defendant to demonstrate a 
"substantial need" for the PSI report without knowing (or 
recalling) its contents.7  A defendant would not necessarily know 
whether the PSI report might support issues in furtherance of a 
direct appeal or motion for modification of sentence without 
having the chance to review the PSI report when preparing his or 
her response to a no-merit report.   
                                                 
6 We note that the former Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) did not 
establish criteria to guide the court as to what a defendant-
appellant would have to show in order to obtain "specific 
authorization of the court" to view the presentence report as 
part of the appellate process. 
7 The State notably omits in its brief any discussion of 
whether the desire to file a response to the no-merit report as 
provided in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(e) would constitute a 
"substantial need" for the PSI report.     
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
16 
 
¶32 We decline to address the apparent conflict between 
the former Wis. Stat. § 972.15 and Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32.  
Instead, we vacate the circuit court's order and remand this 
matter to be resolved by applying the recently amended version 
of § 972.15, which provides more guidance to circuit courts and 
is more readily harmonized with § (Rule) 809.32.8   
¶33 Effective April 21, 2006, Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) was 
amended and Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m) was created by 2005 Wis. Act 
311, Sections 1 and 2.  The new subsections provide:9 
972.15 Presentence investigation. 
. . . . 
 
 (4) Except as provided in sub. (4m) or (5), 
after sentencing the presentence investigation report 
                                                 
8 We note that procedural statutes are usually given 
retroactive application, an exception to the general rule that 
statutes are applied prospectively.  See Snopek v. Lakeland 
Medical Center, 223 Wis. 2d 288, 295, 588 N.W.2d 19 (1999); 
Gutter v. Seamandel, 103 Wis. 2d 1, 17-18, 308 N.W.2d 403 
(1981).  A statute is substantive rather than procedural in 
nature 
if 
it 
"creates, 
defines 
or 
regulates 
rights 
or 
obligations."  City of Madison v. Town of Madison, 127 Wis. 2d 
96, 102, 377 N.W.2d 221 (Ct. App. 1985).  "If a statute simply 
prescribes the method——the 'legal machinery'——used in enforcing 
a right or a remedy, it is procedural."  Id.  (citation 
omitted).  Because the amendments to Wis. Stat. § 972.15 relate 
to the procedures by which parties may access a PSI report and 
pursue an appeal, we conclude that retroactive application of 
the amended statute is appropriate here.    
9 Effective June 4, 2006, 2005 Wis. Act 434, Sections 49 and 
50, 
further 
amended 
Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) 
and 
created 
§ 972.15(6).  This change specified the persons and agencies 
that are permitted access to a PSI for purposes of a Chapter 980 
proceeding, and is therefore not relevant to this case.   
 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
17 
 
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.                   
¶34 Unlike the prior version of Wis. Stat. § 972.15, the 
amended statute specifically addresses a defendant's access to 
the PSI report after sentencing.  It states that the PSI report 
is confidential "except as provided in sub. (4m) and (5)."  
Subsection (4m) states that "the district attorney and the 
defendant's attorney are entitled to have and keep a copy of the 
presentence investigation report."  The subsection further 
provides that "[i]f the defendant is not represented by counsel, 
the defendant is entitled to view the presentence report but may 
not keep a copy of the report."  Significantly, a defendant 
proceeding under the new statute, subject to the need to conceal 
the identity of any person who provided information in the PSI 
report pursuant to § 972.15(3), is "entitled to view the pre-
sentence investigation report," and thus a circuit court acting 
within its discretion may not deny access to the PSI report 
altogether.   
¶35 We conclude that permitting a defendant in a no-merit 
appeal access to the PSI report is consistent with the design 
and purpose of the no-merit procedure.  Wisconsin Stat. § (Rule) 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
18 
 
809.32(1)(e) (within 30 days after service of the report) and 
Anders guarantee a defendant the right to respond to the no-
merit report filed by his or her counsel.  To have a fair chance 
to respond to appointed counsel's conclusion that an appeal in 
the defendant's case would be frivolous, and to raise any points 
that he or she chooses, a defendant is constitutionally and 
statutorily provided access to all parts of the record not under 
seal or subject to redaction.     
¶36 In Wilkinson v. Cowan, 231 F.3d 347 (7th Cir. 2000), 
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the importance to 
the no-merit appellant of Anders' requirement that he or she 
have an opportunity to respond to the no-merit report.  There, 
Wilkinson, convicted in Illinois state court of murdering his 
estranged wife, sought postconviction relief on grounds that 
trial counsel was ineffective, which was denied by the trial 
court.  Wilkinson, 231 F.3d at 348-49.  On appeal, Wilkinson's 
appointed counsel filed a no-merit report, and the appellate 
court agreed that the case presented no issue of arguable merit.  
Id.  at 349.  However, Wilkinson, having not been informed of 
his right to respond to the no-merit report by counsel or the 
court, did not file a response to the report.  Id.   
¶37 When Wilkinson later filed a federal habeas corpus 
petition reasserting his claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel, the district court concluded that he had procedurally 
defaulted by failing to make this argument to the state 
appellate court.  Id. at 349-50.  The United States Court of 
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that a 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
19 
 
procedural default was inappropriate where the defendant was not 
informed of his right to respond to the no-merit report:   
[W]e do not think that Wilkinson can be faulted for 
failing 
to 
[respond 
to 
the 
no-merit 
report].  
Wilkinson was not apprised (either by his attorney or 
by the appellate court) that he had a right to respond 
to the motion, let alone an obligation to do so if he 
wished to preserve his claims for further review. 
Id.  at 351 (emphasis in original). 
¶38 Additionally, the requirement that the defendant be 
given the chance to respond to the no-merit report assists the 
appellate court in determining whether, in fact, any meritorious 
appellate issues exist.  In upholding against a constitutional 
challenge the requirement of Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32 that 
counsel "give reasons" for his or her conclusion that an appeal 
would be frivolous, the United States Supreme Court in McCoy 
concluded that counsel's reasons would "assist the court in 
passing on the soundness of the lawyer's conclusion that the 
appeal is frivolous."  McCoy, 486 U.S. at 442.  Likewise, the 
appellate tribunal's deliberative process benefits from the 
arguments of the defendant made in response to the no-merit 
report.      
¶39 We turn now to the procedure by which a defendant 
subject to a no-merit procedure may access the PSI report.  
Wisconsin Stat. § 972.15(4m) addresses access to the PSI report 
by defendant's counsel (who may keep a copy of the report) and a 
pro se defendant (who may view the report but may not keep a 
copy of it).  We pause to consider which of these two categories 
best describes a defendant subject to the no-merit procedure.  
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
20 
 
Such a defendant is, of course, represented by appointed 
counsel, who fulfills his or her professional obligations to the 
client by conscientiously reviewing the record and "referring 
[in the no-merit report] to anything in the record that might 
arguably support the appeal."  Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.   
¶40 However, a defendant in a no-merit appeal is not 
represented by counsel in the typical adversarial manner that 
counsel represents a defendant in a meritorious appeal.  As the 
court of appeals noted in Tillman, 281 Wis. 2d 157, ¶20, "a no-
merit appeal is a different breed of appeal."  Unlike a 
defendant in a "conventional appeal," the defendant in a no-
merit appeal is "permitted to separately weigh in by raising 
objections to counsel's brief or by raising additional issues."  
Id., ¶18.  Indeed, a defendant's failure to respond to the no-
merit report, absent a demonstration of sufficient reason for 
such failure, might preclude him or her from raising any issues 
in future postconviction challenges that could have been raised 
as part of the no-merit appeal.  Id., ¶19.10      
¶41 The 
defendant subject to the no-merit procedure 
utilizes the PSI report to prepare his or her response to the 
no-merit report of his or her own counsel.  In completing this 
                                                 
10 We agree with the court of appeals that in considering 
whether to apply the procedural bar of State v. Escalona-
Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 181-82, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994), in 
subsequent postconviction proceedings, circuit and appellate 
courts must pay close attention to whether the no-merit 
procedures were in fact followed.  See State v. Tillman, 2005 WI 
App 71, ¶20, 281 Wis. 2d 157, 696 N.W.2d 574.  
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
21 
 
task, the defendant seeks to counter his or her own counsel's 
determination that the appeal lacks merit, which puts the 
defendant at odds with counsel before the appellate court.  We 
therefore conclude that, for the limited purposes of determining 
the 
procedure 
for 
accessing 
the 
PSI 
report 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m), a defendant in a no-merit appeal is in 
the same shoes as a defendant who is "unrepresented," and should 
be treated as such.   
¶42 Moreover, we conclude that it would be contrary to the 
purpose and policy of Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m) (2005-06) to deny 
the defendant a viewing of the PSI report simply because he or 
she is represented by counsel in a no-merit appeal.  We agree 
with the rationale of the court of appeals in State v. Skaff, 
152 Wis. 2d 48, 447 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1989), that "the 
legislature could not have intended that a defendant appearing 
without counsel had greater rights to his PSI than a defendant 
who appeared with counsel."  Id. at 57.  The Skaff court 
interpreted Wis. Stat. § 972.15(2) as providing a represented 
defendant the same rights to access his or her own PSI report 
prior to sentencing as an unrepresented defendant.11  We note 
that while subsection (4m) refers to postconviction access 
instead of access prior to sentencing, each subsection treats 
                                                 
11 Wisconsin Stat. § 972.15(2) 
provides 
that 
"[w]hen 
a 
presentence investigation report has been received the judge 
shall disclose the contents of the report to the defendant's 
attorney and to the district attorney prior to sentencing. When 
the defendant is not represented by an attorney, the contents 
shall be disclosed to the defendant."   
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
22 
 
unrepresented defendants and represented defendants the same.  
Thus, because a represented defendant under subsection (2) is 
allowed access to his or her PSI report prior to sentencing, we 
can discern no reason why a represented defendant is not given 
comparable access following conviction under subsection (4m).12   
¶43 Accordingly, under Wis. Stat. §  972.15(4m) (2005-06), 
we conclude that a defendant subject to the no-merit procedure 
may view a copy of the PSI report but may not keep a copy of it.  
This opportunity to view the report must be meaningful; the 
defendant should have sufficient time to conduct a thorough 
review of the document and, if the defendant has made a timely 
request to view the PSI report, the viewing should occur soon 
enough to give the defendant time to incorporate material from 
the PSI report in the defendant's response to the no-merit 
report. 
¶44 Wisconsin Stat. § 972.15 addresses the need to protect 
sensitive information that may be contained in the PSI report.  
First, a defendant who views the PSI report "shall keep the 
information 
in 
the 
report 
confidential."13  
Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m) (2005-06). Second, the right of a 
                                                 
12 Because we conclude that the statute grants Parent 
personal access to his PSI report, we do not address the 
constitutional questions that were discussed in State v. Skaff, 
152 Wis. 2d 48, 53-55, 447 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1989).  See State 
v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 533, 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985).   
13 The viewing of the PSI report shall occur under 
conditions in which the opportunity for copying or disclosure to 
others is precluded.               
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
23 
 
defendant to view the PSI report is subject to the restrictions 
of § 972.15(3), which provide that "[t]he [circuit] judge may 
conceal the identity of any person who provided information in 
the presentence investigation report."   
¶45 Consistent 
with 
the 
requirements 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 972.15(3), we hold that a defendant subject to a 
no-merit appeal must notify the circuit court of the defendant's 
desire to view the PSI report to permit the judge to review the 
PSI report and to redact as the judge deems appropriate 
identifying information of persons who provided information for 
the report and information that may be confidential under other 
law not discussed here.  The circuit court's exercise of 
discretion is limited under the statute to redacting, as it 
deems 
appropriate, 
identifying information of persons who 
provided information and information that may be confidential 
under other applicable law.  Under § 972.15(4m) (2005-06), the 
circuit court may not deny altogether the defendant's request to 
view a copy of the PSI report.  
¶46 On remand, should appointed appellate counsel file the 
anticipated no-merit report in Parent's appeal, counsel must 
serve a copy of the record on Parent, along with a copy of the 
no-merit report, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(a).  
This copy of the record may not include a copy of the PSI 
report.  However, consistent with Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m) (2005-
06) and subject to the limitations of subsection (3), the 
circuit court must determine whether to redact names or other 
identifying information of persons providing information in the 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
24 
 
PSI report.  The circuit court must then give Parent a 
meaningful opportunity to view a copy of the report.  See 
Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m).  
V 
¶47 We turn now to the court of appeals' request to 
clarify the procedure by which the attorney general's office may 
in no-merit appeals access the PSI report and disclose its 
contents 
in the State's brief.  The court of appeals' 
certification states as follows: 
[T]he State['s brief to the court of appeals] notes 
that the Attorney General's established procedure for 
seeking access to the PSI has been to file a motion 
with the court of appeals.  These motions typically 
request permission to unseal the PSI and, in some 
manner, disclose its contents in the State's brief.  
The State questions whether these motions should be 
filed in the trial court rather than the court of 
appeals.  This court has routinely ruled on the 
State's motions, construing the Attorney General as 
successor counsel to the District Attorney.  Because 
the motions involve the contents of briefs filed with 
this court, we have assumed that the motion is 
appropriately filed in this court.  A prisoner's 
motion for access, however, involves questions of fact 
and knowledge of the details of the case that is more 
appropriately decided by the trial court.  We submit 
that it is appropriate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court 
to 
determine 
whether 
this 
court's 
established 
procedures are authorized by Wis. Stat. §§ 972.15(4) 
and 967.02(7).  
 
¶48 Wisconsin Stat. § 967.02 provides that "[i]n chs. 967 
to 979, unless the context of a specific section manifestly 
requires a different construction  . . .  (7) 'Court' means the 
circuit court unless otherwise indicated."  As above, we 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
25 
 
construe the recently enacted version of Wis. Stat. § 972.15 
(2005-06).14  Section 972.15 now provides, in pertinent part: 
(4) Except as provided in sub. (4m) or (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.  
¶49 We conclude that the attorney general comes under the 
purview of Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) and (4m) (2005-06) because, in 
criminal appeals, the attorney general is often the State's 
successor to the district attorney.15  Subsection (4m) does not 
establish the procedure by which the district attorney is to 
receive the PSI report, only that the district attorney is 
"entitled to have and keep a copy" of it.  However, the "court" 
referenced in subsection (4) is, under Wis. Stat. § 967.02(7), 
                                                 
14 However, our conclusions that the attorney general may be 
the successor to the district attorney and that the attorney 
general's office must file its request to view the PSI report 
with the circuit court and not the court of appeals apply under 
the former Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) as well.  
15 In general, the district attorney handles all single-
judge cases in the court of appeals.  Wis. Stat. § 978.05(5).  
The attorney general normally handles all felony and Chapter 980 
cases, as well as all cases before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, 
and may assume responsibility in a single-judge appeal if the 
court of appeals orders that the case be decided by a three-
judge panel.  Wis. Stat. §§  165.25(1); 752.31(3) and (4).  
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
26 
 
the circuit court.  We note that the district attorney (or here, 
the attorney general) need not seek "specific authorization" of 
the circuit court to view the PSI report under subsection (4).  
However, the court of appeals is not specifically mentioned 
anywhere in § 972.15.  The statute does not specify that 
requests to obtain access to the PSI report be made to any 
tribunal other than the circuit court.  We therefore conclude 
that under §§ 972.15 and 967.02(7) the attorney general's office 
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 for the purposes of a no-merit appeal. 
VI 
¶50 To summarize, under Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m) (2005-06), 
Parent is entitled to a meaningful viewing of the PSI report, 
but may not retain a copy of it.  However, this right is subject 
to the requirement that the defendant keep the information in 
the report confidential, and the circuit court's prerogative to 
redact 
identifying 
information 
of 
persons 
who 
provided 
information for the report.  We therefore vacate the order of 
the circuit court denying Parent's request to review the PSI 
report and remand for Parent to personally access the report 
under Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4m).  Finally, we conclude that, in a 
no-merit appeal, the attorney general is often the State's 
successor to the district attorney for purposes of § 972.15, and 
that under § 972.15, the attorney general's office after 
sentencing must make its request to obtain a copy of the PSI 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
27 
 
report and disclose its contents in the State's brief with the 
circuit court. 
By the Court.—The order of the circuit court is vacated and 
cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion. 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2005AP661-CRNM   
 
 
 
1