Opinion ID: 1868629
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of Habitual Criminality

Text: ¶ 33 The second issue we address is whether the CCAP report offered by the State at sentencing is sufficient to constitute prima facie proof that Bonds is an habitual criminal. The parties agree that the State has the burden to prove Bonds's repeater status beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 34 Bonds argues that the State failed to meet its burden because CCAP reports are unreliable as they do not even purport to accurately reflect official court records. He reminds us that the CCAP user agreement explicitly states that CCAP reports should not be relied on as accurately representing the information provided. Furthermore, Bonds argues that CCAP records do not constitute an official report of a government agency that would constitute prima facie evidence pursuant to the language of Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1). Therefore, even absent an objection on his part to the evidence offered, the State did not meet its burden to prove a qualifying conviction. ¶ 35 The State, on the other hand, argues that CCAP records should be considered official government reports pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1) and the reasoning of State v. Farr, 119 Wis.2d 651, 350 N.W.2d 640 (1984), in which we suggested that a presentence report may constitute an official report where it contains the date of conviction for the previous offense. Id. at 658, 350 N.W.2d 640. The State also contends that even if there are problems with using a CCAP report, Bonds waived his right to challenge the CCAP report as proof of his prior conviction because he did not specifically object to its use at sentencing. Therefore, we need not address whether CCAP records are adequate proof of a qualifying conviction. The State relies on our decision in State v. Saunders, 2002 WI 107, 255 Wis.2d 589, 649 N.W.2d 263.
¶ 36 Wisconsin Stat. § 973.12(1) directs that [a]n official report of the F.B.I. or any other governmental agency of the United States or of this or any other state shall be prima facie evidence of any conviction or sentence therein reported. We discussed the meaning of this language in Farr, 119 Wis.2d at 656-60, 350 N.W.2d 640. ¶ 37 In Farr, we concluded that a probation report that did not state the dates of a defendant's prior convictions left to conjecture whether any of them were within the previous five years. Farr, 119 Wis.2d at 657-58, 350 N.W.2d 640. We determined that such a report was not an official report of the type described in Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1). Id. at 658, 350 N.W.2d 640. We did not decide whether a presentence or probation report that had the proper information could serve as an official report, but we explained: To be an official report under sec. 973.12(1), Stats., on which reliance may be placed, the report must contain relevant information regarding the issue of repeater status and must specifically include the date of conviction for the previous offense.... The report in the present case did not contain such information and, therefore, could not be relied on for the penalty enhancement. Id. ¶ 38 In Saunders, we reviewed the same statutory term, official report, where a defendant challenged the State's use of an uncertified copy of a judgment of conviction, as failing to prove habitual criminality. We concluded that although certified copies of judgments are sufficient to constitute prima facie evidence of habitual criminality, Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1) does not require the State to use certified copies of prior judgments of conviction as the basis for enhanced penalties. Saunders, 255 Wis.2d 589, ¶ 24, 649 N.W.2d 263. ¶ 39 We also explained that before a circuit court may enhance a sentence, a criminal defendant's repeater status must be established. We explained that repeater status can be proved with a variety of evidence. Id., ¶ 26. If the rules of evidence were to apply in proving prior convictions under § 973.12(1), those rules would require that the State use a certified copy of a judgment of conviction to satisfy its burden of proof. Id., ¶ 38. However, the rules of evidence do not apply: Considering many factors, we conclude that the proceeding in which the state seeks to prove habitual criminality is, under Wisconsin's statutory scheme, more analogous to the sentencing process than to trial and, therefore, should be treated similarly in terms of evidentiary requirements. Id. ¶ 40 We also held that just because the rules of evidence do not apply to documentary proof under Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1), the State is not relieved of its burden of proof. Id., ¶ 47. Proof of prior convictions directly affects the sentence a criminal defendant may receive, and therefore, it affects a liberty interest. Accordingly, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is essential to the State's pursuit of additional punishment under Wis. Stat. § 939.62. Id., ¶¶ 47-51. ¶ 41 In the course of our discussion, we drew several principles from our prior considerations of the proof of prior convictions: (1) an admission by the defendant must contain specific references to the date of the conviction and any period of incarceration, if relevant to applying Wis. Stat. § 939.62, and must be made by the defendant, personally; (2) a certified copy of a judgment of conviction is evidence sufficient to prove prior convictions; (3) no decision had concluded that using an uncertified copy of the judgment of conviction or another type of report as evidence of prior convictions was prohibited. Id., ¶¶ 21-28. ¶ 42 We reasoned that an uncertified copy of a judgment of conviction was being represented as an authentic copy of the original document, which we had previously concluded is sufficient proof of a prior conviction. Id., ¶¶ 24-34. We noted that certifying a record helps to insure its authenticity, but that an uncertified copy is not materially different from a certified copy, and is identical with the exception of an official stamp. Id., ¶ 28. The same information will be present in both documents. [L]ittle is gained by distinguishing between certified and uncertified prior judgments of conviction in this context. Id., ¶ 28. Accordingly, we concluded that an uncertified copy of a judgment of conviction can also serve to prove prior convictions under Wis. Stat. § 973.12. Id., ¶ 33. We noted that if an uncertified copy contains inaccurate information, the defendant should object and move the court to require the State to take remedial action, just as a defendant should do if a certified copy of a judgment contained a material error. Id., ¶ 29. ¶ 43 In Saunders, we also noted that Saunders had made no objection to the use of an uncertified copy of the judgment. Id., ¶ 62. We concluded that his lack of an objection was significant because it showed Saunders stipulated to the mode of proof employed by the State. Id., ¶ 63. However, we expressly concluded that this stipulation did not constitute a `waiver' of the State's overall proof requirement. Id. ¶ 44 We established the following related principles with regard to proof of habitual criminality at sentencing: (1) if the State fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is a repeater, then the sentencing court is without authority to sentence the defendant as a repeat offender, id., ¶ 49; (2) when the State provides an official report that constitutes prima facie proof of a conviction pursuant to the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1), a defendant's failure to object operates as a stipulation to the mode of proof that the State has chosen to use, id., ¶ 63; (3) a lack of an objection explicitly aimed at the mode of proof offered by the State does not relieve the State of its burden to prove habitual criminality beyond a reasonable doubt, id. ¶ 45 It is important to note that one of the questions we addressed in Saunders was whether an uncertified copy of a judgment of conviction was what it purported to be, i.e., an authentic copy of the judgment of conviction. Id., ¶ 28. That question differs markedly from the question posed by a CCAP report. With a CCAP report, the question is whether the report is an accurate narration of the judgment of conviction of a particular defendant, for a particular crime, on a particular date. Koeppen, 195 Wis.2d at 127, 536 N.W.2d 386. ¶ 46 According to the Policy on Disclosure of Public Information Over the Internet provided by the Director of State Courts, a CCAP report is provided through a public-access internet website containing open record information, the WCCA. The Director of State Courts explains: Because information in the CCAP data-base changes constantly, WCCA is not responsible for subsequent entries that update, modify, correct or delete data. WCCA is not responsible for notifying prior requesters of updates, modifications, corrections or deletions. http://wcca.wicourts.gov/index.xsl; choose Public Records on the Internet link, 2.g. (last visited June 24, 2006). Therefore, a CCAP report, by its own terms, is of questionable accuracy. It is not the official record of a criminal case, as the clerks of court for each county are the officials responsible for those records. Wis. Stat. § 59.40(2)(c). And, a CCAP report is not a copy of the actual judgment of conviction. Yet, it was offered to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bonds was convicted of felony forgery on a particular date. The disclaimer with which a CCAP report is conditioned causes us to have reasonable doubt about its accuracy. ¶ 47 Our concerns about the use of CCAP records to satisfy the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1) do not affect our view that CCAP provides quality, immensely valuable, services to the citizens of Wisconsin and to those who work in the Wisconsin court system. We agree with the concurrence/dissent, that the creation of CCAP has facilitated efficient use of court resources and greater access to court information by the public. Concurrence/Dissent, ¶ 112. Although we have decided that a CCAP record is insufficient to establish prima facie proof that Bonds is an habitual criminal, our decision is driven in large part by the design of CCAP, which was not devised to afford proof of a factual proposition beyond a reasonable doubt. CCAP was designed to assist the circuit courts in case management functions and to afford greater public access to the court system. CCAP has been extraordinarily successful in accomplishing these purposes. ¶ 48 While Saunders clearly holds that documents other than a certified copy of a judgment of conviction may constitute an official report that would serve as prima facie proof of habitual criminality under Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1), only an uncertified copy of the judgment and a presentence report that lists the crime and the date of conviction have been held to be sufficient by a Wisconsin appellate court. Saunders, 255 Wis.2d 589, ¶ 33, 649 N.W.2d 263; see also State v. Goldstein, 182 Wis.2d 251, 259, 513 N.W.2d 631 (Ct.App. 1994); State v. Caldwell, 154 Wis.2d 683, 694-95, 454 N.W.2d 13 (Ct.App.1990). And, as the court of appeals explained in Caldwell, one of the reasons for accepting that presentence report was the assurance of its accuracy because the investigating agent expressly contemplated the complaint's repeater allegation and the agent verified both the prior conviction and the date of conviction from sources other than the complaint. Caldwell, 154 Wis.2d at 694, 454 N.W.2d 13. ¶ 49 Accordingly, we are persuaded that the reasoning of Saunders cannot be analogously applied to a CCAP report. CCAP records are not like uncertified copies of judgments in that CCAP reports do not purport to be identical to the court records, as photocopies do. The agreement to which all CCAP users are asked to adhere specifically warns that CCAP provides no warranty of accuracy for the data in its reports. We cannot, under those circumstances, consider the contents of a CCAP report to rise to the level of reliability sufficient to establish prima facie proof that a defendant has a prior qualifying conviction. In addition, Bonds did not stipulate to using a CCAP report as the mode of proof for habitual criminality. [11] He asserted before the circuit court that the State had not proved habitual criminality beyond a reasonable doubt; he has continued to do so throughout the appellate process. Therefore, we conclude that by relying solely [12] on the CCAP report, and without other evidence that could prove Bonds's repeater status beyond a reasonable doubt, the State did not offer sufficient evidence to constitute prima facie proof that Bonds was an habitual criminal. Accordingly, the State did not meet its burden to prove habitual criminality.
¶ 50 It is undisputed that the State has the burden of proof with regard to the question of whether Bonds is a repeater and we have concluded that the State did not satisfy that burden because it relied solely on a CCAP report. Therefore, in order for the State to have the power to sentence Bonds as a repeater, we would have to conclude that Bonds waived his right to challenge the evidence of habitual criminality because he did not object to using the CCAP report as the sole mode of proof in the circuit court. ¶ 51 The State contends that we concluded in Saunders that an objection to the sufficiency of the evidence of habitual criminality must be made in the circuit court or it is waived. The State no doubt refers to the following passage: It would be an odd result if we were to preclude the state from offering an uncertified copy of a prior judgment of conviction when the defendant makes no objection to the submission of the document. It is commonly understood that when evidence is submitted at trial, much less for sentencing, a defendant who remains silent generally waives any objection to the submission of that evidence. Saunders, 255 Wis.2d 589, ¶ 31, 649 N.W.2d 263. ¶ 52 However, as we explained in ¶ 43 above, the State misunderstands the reason that we could have concluded waiver was present in Saunders. In Saunders, the evidence offered, a copy of the judgment of conviction, was sufficient to constitute prima facie proof of habitual criminality. Saunders offered no countering evidence. Therefore, on the record in Saunders, the State did provide sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof. [13] ¶ 53 Here, the CCAP report was not sufficient to constitute prima facie proof of Bonds's repeater status. Therefore, not making a specific objection when evidence that is insufficient to constitute prima facie proof of a prior qualifying conviction is presented is not a waiver. Bonds did object to the sufficiency of the evidence the State presented, arguing that the State had not proved habitual criminality beyond a reasonable doubt. For the reasons explained above, a CCAP report does not come within our holding in regard to waiver set out in Saunders. Because the only evidence submitted was the CCAP report, we conclude that Bonds's objection is sufficient to defeat the State's contention that he waived his objection to proving habitual criminality with a CCAP report. Therefore, we conclude that the repeater portion of Bonds's sentence must be vacated.