Opinion ID: 2682632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-Custody Behavior

Text: 8 Defendants are advised at the time of sentencing that the amount of time he or she must actually serve in prison may be extended as provided in Wis. Stat. § 302.113(3), and that because of such extensions the person could serve the entire bifurcated sentence in prison. Wis. Stat. § 973.01(8)(a)4. Wisconsin Stat. § 302.113(3) provides that, if an inmate violates any regulation of the prison or refuses or neglects to perform required or assigned duties, the Department of Corrections may extend the inmate's term of confinement. 9 Further, even if we accepted Bokenyi's reading of the prosecutor's reference to the letter, a defendant is entitled to resentencing only if a breach is not merely a technical breach. Williams, 249 Wis. 2d 492, ¶38. 26 No. 2012AP2557-CR ¶71 Bokenyi also argues that the prosecutor materially and substantially breached the plea agreement when he referred to a jail incident report as most frightening. Bokenyi claims that the prosecutor's editorial comment undercut the negotiated recommendation. Bokenyi's argument fails because the incident report is relevant information for a court to consider when addressing the need to protect the public. The comment was not an effort to urge the court to impose a sentence on the defendant beyond that being recommended by the State. ¶72 At sentencing, pertinent factors relating to the defendant's character and behavioral pattern cannot be immunized by a plea agreement between the defendant and the State. Williams, 249 Wis. 2d 492, ¶43 (citing Elias, 93 Wis. 2d at 285). [P]lea agreements where the prosecution agrees not to reveal information that is relevant to sentencing are against public policy and will be rejected by the courts. Id., ¶63 (citing Grant v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 441, 448, 243 N.W.2d 186 (1976)). ¶73 Further, nothing prevents a prosecutor from characterizing a defendant's conduct in harsh terms, even when such characterizations, viewed in isolation, might appear inconsistent with the agreed-on sentencing recommendation. Liukonen, 276 Wis. 2d 64, ¶10 (emphasis in original). The prosecutor must simply refrain from making comments that suggest the prosecutor now believes the disposition he or she is recommending pursuant to the agreement is insufficient. Id., ¶11. 27 No. 2012AP2557-CR ¶74 For example, in Ferguson the defendant pled guilty to having sexual contact with a minor, pursuant to a plea agreement. 166 Wis. 2d at 319. The plea agreement provided that the State would recommend imposed and stayed sentences on the two charges, 20 years probation, and two consecutive sixmonth county jail terms as a condition of probation. Id. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor described the offenses as the most perverted of all perverted sex acts and stated, this is the sickest case that I have seen or read about. If I refer to this defendant as 'sleaze,' I think that would be giving him a compliment. Id. at 319-20. Because the prosecutor also made the agreed upon sentencing recommendation, however, the court of appeals concluded that the prosecutor's remarks did not amount to a breach of the plea agreement in spite of the greater than normal vitriol displayed by the prosecutor. Id. at 325. ¶75 Similarly, in Naydihor, the defendant pled guilty to injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle, pursuant to a plea agreement. 270 Wis. 2d 585, ¶3. The plea agreement provided that the State would recommend probation but retain[] a free hand on the conditions of that probation. Id. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor repeatedly referred to the defendant as a danger and a threat to the community. Id., ¶13. The prosecutor also discussed the devastating impact that the crime had had on the victim, who had been confined to a wheelchair by the incident. Id. This court concluded that because [t]he information the prosecutor discussed constituted no more than pertinent behavioral characteristics and 28 No. 2012AP2557-CR aggravating factors relevant to sentencing, the prosecutor's comments were not a material and substantial breach of the plea agreement. Id., ¶27. ¶76 By contrast, in Liukonen, the court of appeals concluded that the prosecutor's sentencing argument did constitute a material and substantial breach of a plea agreement. In Liukonen, the defendant was charged with four robberies using a handgun. 276 Wis. 2d 64, ¶2. The defendant pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement. Id., ¶3. In exchange for the defendant's pleas, the prosecutor agreed to limit his sentence recommendation to a total of 17 years of incarceration. Id. At the sentencing hearing, however, the prosecutor stated that he had reflected on the facts of the case and had concluded that his sentence recommendation gave the defendant 'a tremendous break from the system.' Id., ¶15. Despite the fact that the prosecutor also made the agreed upon recommendation, the court of appeals determined that such a comment 'implicitly suggests that [the prosecutor] has changed [his] mind about [his] recommendation.' Id. (quoting Williams, 249 Wis. 2d 492, ¶71 (Wilcox, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part)). The court of appeals determined that such a comment was a material and substantial breach of the plea agreement. Id., ¶17. ¶77 In the case at issue, the prosecutor in no way undermined or distanced himself from a recommendation at the high end range of the PSI. The prosecutor's quotation of the jail incident report supplied the court with relevant 29 No. 2012AP2557-CR information which the prosecutor explicitly tied to a proper sentencing factor: the need to protect the public from William Bokenyi. The prosecutor's comment that the report was frightening was, at most, an editorial comment akin to those made in Ferguson and Naydihor. Further, immediately after discussing the jail incident report, the prosecutor explicitly endorsed a sentence that comported with the plea agreement. The prosecutor in the case at issue in no way expressed second thoughts about the agreement with the defendant, nor did he express any indication that he thought the defendant was getting an undeserved break from the system, as in Liukonen. If anything, counsel should feel the compunction to advise the court of relevant information regarding the defendant's conduct. ¶78 Thus, in the case at issue, the prosecutor's discussion of the jail incident report did not materially and substantially breach the plea agreement.