Opinion ID: 2115813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the sentence valid?

Text: Upon return of the jury verdict of guilty, the court accepted and received the verdict; then without formally pronouncing Spiller was convicted, the court proceeded to sentence him. It is claimed this short-cut procedure was in violation of sec. 959.01 (1) and (2), Stats., [3] and sec. 939.73. [4] The latter section provides a sentence can be imposed only after the defendant has been duly convicted. The question is what is meant by the word conviction? A reading of sec. 959.01 (1) indicates that a conviction is different than a finding of fact because it must be based upon: (1) A verdict of guilty by the jury, or (2) a finding of guilty by the court, or (3) a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. In this section, conviction means the legal status of the accused based upon a factual finding or admission of guilt. The court, in concluding an accused has acquired the legal status of being convicted, must accept the verdict or its own finding or the plea of guilty or nolo contendere. And, while the conviction is generally evidenced by a separate pronouncement of a judgment to that effect by the court it may be combined with the sentencing. The practice in the trial courts to even pronounce a judgment of conviction has not been uniform or formalized prior to July 1, 1970, when the application of sec. 972.13 of the Criminal Code became effective. While subsection (2) of sec. 959.01, Stats., provides the court has the duty to pronounce judgment upon conviction and may adjourn the case from time to time for that purpose, the word judgment here means sentencing. Neither sec. 959.01 (1) or (2) requires a formal judgment of conviction and we think the acceptance by the court of the jury's verdict of guilty was tantamount to a pronouncement of Spiller's legal status of having been convicted. Unfortunately for clarity, the word conviction has been used in several meanings in the statutes. In Davis v. State (1908), 134 Wis. 632, 115 N. W. 150, the information involving a recidivist referred to prior conviction instead of a sentence. The court held this reference to be harmless error but pointed out there was a legal distinction between a conviction and a sentence. The court also observed the word conviction was used in two senses in the statutes; a common use which meant a finding by a jury that a person is guilty and also a frequent use which meant a judgment and sentence of the court upon a verdict or a confession of guilt. It was pointed out in Remington v. Judd (1925), 186 Wis. 338, 202 N. W. 679, in a case involving the use of criminal proceedings for impeachment purposes, that the word conviction in the statute meant the proceeding had reached the stage of judicial determination that the person charged of the offense was guilty. While it was unfortunate the trial court merely accepted the jury verdict and did not go farther and pronounce Spiller guilty, the sentence in this case will not be set aside because of it. However, the new Criminal Code, sec. 972.13, Stats., now provides expressly for a formal judgment of conviction to be entered upon a verdict of guilty, a finding of guilty, or a plea of guilty, or no contest. [5] Therefore, the sentence, if one is imposed, must be imposed upon a judgment of conviction. In the comment to this section, it is stated this section combines old secs. 959.01 and 959.02. While this is true, it also requires a more formal record of the conviction by way of a judgment if the sentencing is to be valid. By the Court. Judgment and order affirmed.