Opinion ID: 2682632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Victim's Letter

Text: ¶58 Bokenyi next argues that the prosecutor materially and substantially breached the plea agreement when he referenced the victim's letter in his sentencing argument. Bokenyi concedes that the initial reading of the victim's letter was not a breach, but instead argues that the prosecutor's subsequent reference to the letter during his argument was a material and substantial breach of the plea agreement. Bokenyi's argument, however, fails to acknowledge how very important victims' rights are within our criminal justice system. A crime victim has the right to express his or her views at sentencing and that need not be kept in a vacuum. Wis. Stat. § 972.14(3)(a). Commentary on and consideration of the victim's recommendations by counsel and the court may be warranted. The victim holds a special place within the public, and the need to protect the public is certainly a factor for the circuit court's consideration. See Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶44. 6 In reviewing a circuit court's decision on ineffective assistance of counsel this court will not exclude the circuit court's articulated assessments of credibility and demeanor, unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Carter, 2010 WI 40, ¶19, 324 Wis. 2d 640, 782 N.W.2d 695 (citing State v. Thiel, 2003 WI 111, ¶23, 264 Wis. 2d 571, 665 N.W.2d 305). 21 No. 2012AP2557-CR ¶59 The Wisconsin Constitution declares that [t]his state shall treat crime victims, as defined by law, with fairness, dignity and respect for their privacy. Wis. Const. art. I, § 9m. Among the crime victim rights secured by the Wisconsin Constitution is the opportunity to make a statement to the court at disposition of a criminal case. Id. ¶60 The legislature has similarly declared an intent to ensure that all victims . . . of crime are treated with dignity, respect, courtesy and sensitivity, and that their rights are honored and protected by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and judges in a manner no less vigorous than the protections afforded criminal defendants. Wis. Stat. § 950.01. ¶61 In accordance with this stated intent, crime victims are entitled by statute to confer with the district attorney concerning the prosecution of the case and the possible outcomes of the prosecution, including potential plea agreements and sentencing recommendations. Wis. Stat. § 971.095(2). Further, [a]fter a conviction, if the district attorney knows of a victim of a crime to be considered at sentencing, the district attorney shall make a reasonable attempt to contact that person to inform him or her of the right to make or provide a statement to the court. Wis. Stat. § 972.14(3)(b). In fact, if a prosecutor fails to comply with the Crime Victim Rights Act, he or she can be fined. Wis. Stat. § 950.11. ¶62 Before pronouncing sentence, the circuit court is also required by statute to inquire of the district attorney whether he or she has complied with the requirements of the crime 22 No. 2012AP2557-CR victim rights laws. Wis. Stat. § 972.14(2m). The court is further required to determine whether a victim of a crime considered at sentencing wants to make a statement to the court. Wis. Stat. § 972.14(3)(a). If a victim wants to make a statement, the court shall allow the victim to make a statement in court or to submit a written statement to be read in court. Id. The statute does not specify any particular party to read the statement. In fact, the sole limitation on the victim's statement is that it be relevant to the sentence. Id. Again, if a judge does not ensure compliance with the victims' rights statutes, the judge can be fined. Wis. Stat. § 950.11. ¶63 Thus, victims' rights play an important role within our criminal justice system. In the case at issue, not only was it proper for the victim's letter to be read, the law required that it be read. Wis. Stat. § 972.14(3)(a); State v. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26, ¶42, 289 Wis. 2d 222, 710 N.W.2d 482. The court was required to consider 'the gravity and nature of the offense, including the effect on the victim' in crafting an appropriate sentence. State v. Naydihor, 2004 WI 43, ¶78, 270 Wis. 2d 585, 678 N.W.2d 220 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). The law does not preclude acknowledgment or commentary regarding the victim's wishes, and it does not prohibit the prosecutor from reading the victim's letter to the court. ¶64 Because victim rights compliance is essential to the sentencing hearing and the factors that a court must weigh in 23 No. 2012AP2557-CR exercising its discretion, consideration of and commentary regarding the victim's wishes may be relevant and appropriate at the sentencing. See Wis. Stat. § 972.14(3)(a); Williams, 249 Wis. 2d 492, ¶¶42-43 (citations omitted) (stating that a prosecutor may not agree to keep relevant information from the sentencing judge). A prosecutor's reference to a victim's letter will not automatically operate as a breach of the plea agreement. In fact, a victim's wishes may often come to bear in considering the need to protect the public. ¶65 Bokenyi argues, however, that the prosecutor went beyond reciting the victim's wishes and instead adopted them as his own. Bokenyi asserts that the victim's request that she and her son be allowed to live fearlessly while her 11-year-old son is growing and in school was, in effect, a request for a seven-year initial confinement period. Although the victim never requested any specific sentence, Bokenyi reasons that in school meant until the son turned 18 years old. Bokenyi argues that when he repeated the victim's request during his sentencing argument, the prosecutor implied that the judge should sentence Bokenyi to an initial confinement period longer than the four years recommended in the PSI. We reject this argument. ¶66 As discussed, the plea agreement called for the State to make a recommendation at the high end range of the PSI. The PSI recommended a sentence of three to four years of initial confinement, followed by three to four years of extended supervision and a three- to five-year probation term. The State in fact recommended a sentence of four years initial 24 No. 2012AP2557-CR confinement, followed by four years of extended supervision and probation on the other counts. Thus, the State's recommendation was consistent with the high end range of the PSI and was therefore consistent with the plea agreement.7 ¶67 As the circuit court noted during the postconviction hearing, the prosecutor was entitled to reference the victim's letter to the court. The court further concluded that restating the victim's wishes without augmenting them in some fashion, without increasing them in some way did not constitute a material and substantial breach of the plea agreement. We agree. ¶68 The prosecutor's statement does not translate into a request for a longer sentence. The prosecutor used the letter as a way to illustrate the need to protect the public from Bokenyi, a proper factor for consideration at sentencing. See Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶44. Further, the prosecutor recommended a term of imprisonment of eight years, that being four years of initial confinement to be followed by four years of extended supervision. The recommendation was consistent with the high end range of the PSI, consistent with the terms of 7 Notably, the State's recommended sentence was also longer than would have been required to keep Bokenyi under supervision through his son's 18th birthday. While we recognize that the sentence would not necessarily have kept Bokenyi incarcerated for the duration of that period, extended supervision serves as a real and substantial deterrent, given that any misconduct by Bokenyi during his extended supervision period could result in his return to prison. Wis. Stat. § 973.01(8). 25 No. 2012AP2557-CR the plea agreement, and seemingly consistent with the victim's wishes. ¶69 It was incumbent on both the court and the prosecutor to ensure compliance with the victims' rights statutes. The victim did not make a specific sentencing recommendation, other than to reasonably request that she and her son be allowed to feel safe while her son was in school. As a result, the victim's wishes were not necessarily at odds with the State's sentencing recommendation. In fact, the State's recommendation of imprisonment for eight years could actually result in Bokenyi being in prison or under supervision for significantly longer than eight years.8 ¶70 Thus, considering the totality of the prosecutor's argument, we do not conclude that the State materially and substantially breached the plea agreement when it referenced the victim's letter.9