Opinion ID: 1740378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of an Applicable Sentencing Guideline

Text: ¶ 29 We now address how a circuit court satisfies its § 973.017(2)(a) obligation to consider applicable sentencing guidelines. ¶ 30 Wisconsin Stat. § 973.017(2)(a) provides that the court shall consider . . . [i]f the offense is a felony, the sentencing guideline. Although the statute does not define shall consider, the context of the statute provides guidance on how a sentencing court satisfies its § 973.017(2)(a) obligation. We conclude that a sentencing court satisfies its § 973.017(2)(a) obligation when the record of the sentencing hearing demonstrates that the court actually considered the sentencing guidelines and so stated on the record. ¶ 31 In sentencing, circuit courts exercise discretion. State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶ 17, 270 Wis.2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. A circuit court's § 973.017(2)(a) obligation is one of many that affects its exercise of discretion at sentencing. Id., ¶ 43, 678 N.W.2d 197. One of the crucial aspects of exercising discretion is deciding the weight to be given to particular factors. We have long recognized that [i]t has been made abundantly clear that the `weight which is to be attributed to each factor is a determination which appears to be particularly within the wide discretion of the sentencing judge.' Anderson v. State, 76 Wis.2d 361, 364, 251 N.W.2d 768 (1977) (quoting Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis.2d 179, 185, 233 N.W.2d 457 (1975)). In Gallion, we recently affirmed that [t]he circuit court possesses wide discretion in determining what factors are relevant to its sentencing decision. Gallion, 270 Wis.2d 535, ¶ 68, 678 N.W.2d 197. Circuit courts must consider numerous factors, but the depth of that consideration is part of the exercise of discretion. The same is true related to a court satisfying its § 973.017(2)(a) obligation. ¶ 32 A circuit court's exercise of discretion does not go unchecked. On appeal, appellate courts review whether the circuit court erroneously exercised it discretion when imposing a sentence. Id., ¶ 17, 678 N.W.2d 197. Appellate courts remand for sentencing or modify the sentence only when an abuse of discretion clearly appears. McCleary v. State, 49 Wis.2d 263, 278, 182 N.W.2d 512 (1971). The sentence imposed by the circuit court is `generally afforded a strong presumption of reasonability because the circuit court is best suited to consider the relevant factors and demeanor of the convicted defendant.' Gallion, 270 Wis.2d 535, ¶ 18, 678 N.W.2d 197 (quoting State v. Borrell, 167 Wis.2d 749, 781, 482 N.W.2d 883 (1992)). ¶ 33 The consideration of an applicable sentencing guideline must be found in the record. Appellate review of a circuit court's exercise of discretion depends on appellate courts being able to access a circuit court's acts of discretion from the record. McCleary established, and Gallion affirmed, that the exercise of sentencing discretion must be set forth on the record. Gallion, 270 Wis.2d 535, ¶ 4, 678 N.W.2d 197. McCleary specifically noted that [i]f the facts are fairly inferable from the record, and the reasons indicate the consideration of legally relevant factors, the sentence should ordinarily be affirmed. McCleary, 49 Wis.2d at 281, 182 N.W.2d 512. Appellate courts depend on the record to determine whether a sentencing court satisfied an obligation during sentencing. The same is true when appellate courts assess whether a circuit court satisfied its § 973.017(2)(a) obligation. ¶ 34 For a sentencing court to satisfy its § 973.017(2)(a) obligation there are not magic words that must appear in the record. The legislature has made clear that the § 973.017(2)(a) obligation does not require a court to make a sentencing decision that is within any range or consistent with a recommendation specified in the guidelines. Wis. Stat. § 973.017(10). By requiring circuit courts to consider any applicable guideline, the legislature has indicated that courts must at least take any applicable guideline into account. ¶ 35 The consideration of an applicable guideline must occur for each sentence imposed for a sentencing court to satisfy its § 973.017(2)(a) obligation. Individualized sentencing, after all, has long been a cornerstone to Wisconsin's criminal justice jurisprudence. Gallion, 270 Wis.2d 535, ¶ 48, 678 N.W.2d 197. ¶ 36 In this case, the record of the postconviction motion hearing reveals that the sentencing judge considered the applicable guideline during the sentencing hearing. During the hearing on Grady's postconviction motion, Judge DiMotto explicitly stated that she had considered the sentencing guideline for armed robbery when she sentenced Grady. In the order denying Grady's postconviction motion, the court also stated that it considered the sentencing guidelines without explicitly identifying that fact and it is clearly apparent from the record that the court did so. Hereafter, supplementing the record with evidence beyond the sentencing hearing will be insufficient. Nevertheless, in this case, we are satisfied that Judge DiMotto considered the applicable sentencing guideline during Grady's sentencing hearing. ¶ 37 Grady argues that § 973.017(2)(a) requires a sentencing court to (1) complete any applicable sentencing worksheet, (2) consider the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guideline, and (3) explain both how the sentencing guideline fits the objectives of sentencing and how the sentencing guideline influences the sentence imposed. We disagree with Grady because the three components of his interpretation each run afoul of the statute and its context. ¶ 38 First, Grady suggests that a judge must complete any applicable sentencing guideline worksheet. This is not required by the statute. Although sentencing guidelines serve as a touchstone for explaining the reasons for the particular sentence imposed, they do not diminish the exercise of discretion that is fundamental to sentencing. Gallion, 270 Wis.2d 535, ¶ 48, 678 N.W.2d 197. A sentencing court's consideration of an applicable sentencing guideline is one of many factors it must consider before imposing a sentence. Id., ¶ 43, 678 N.W.2d 197. ¶ 39 Second, Grady contends that § 973.017(2)(a) requires sentencing courts to consider the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guideline. This construction of § 973.017(2)(a) is too narrow to be consistent with the statutory language. Wisconsin Stat. § 973.017(2)(a) requires that a sentencing court consider the sentencing guidelines adopted by the sentencing commission under § 973.30 or, if the sentencing commission has not adopted a guideline for the offense, any applicable temporary sentencing guideline adopted by the criminal penalties study committee created under 1997 Wisconsin Act 283. ¶ 40 Sentencing guidelines include more than simply a sentencing range. At the time the sentencing court imposed Grady's sentence, the temporary guideline for armed robbery created by the Criminal Penalties Study Committee was in effect. The worksheet included five sections: offense severity assessment, risk assessment evaluation, armed robbery chart, adjustments to sentence indicated in chart, and imposition of sentence. The armed robbery chart provided sentencing ranges. The legislature has stated that the § 973.017(2)(a) obligation does not require a court to make a sentencing decision that is within any range or consistent with a recommendation specified in the guidelines. Wis. Stat. § 973.017(10). ¶ 41 Third, Grady argues that § 973.017(2)(a) requires that the sentencing court explain both how the sentencing guideline fits the objectives of sentencing and how the sentencing guideline influences the sentence. This construction of § 973.017(2)(a) confuses the distinction between having the obligation to state the reasons for a sentencing decision and to consider a sentencing factor. Wisconsin Stat. § 973.017(10m) provides that a sentencing court shall state the reasons for its sentencing decision. It does not require that the sentencing court enumerate all of the factors that might have been considered in reaching the decision. It remains within the discretion of the circuit court to discuss only those factors it believes are relevant. State v. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181, ¶ 16, 276 Wis.2d 224, 688 N.W.2d 20. ¶ 42 Grady does not argue that the court failed to satisfy its § 973.017(10m) obligation to state the reasons for its sentencing decision. His sole complaint relates to the sentencing court's failure to consider the applicable sentencing guideline. Wisconsin Stat. § 973.017(2)(a) does not include language that suggests that considering a sentencing guideline means the sentencing court must explain both how the sentencing guideline fits the objectives of sentencing and how the sentencing guideline influences the sentence imposed. From the language of § 973.017(2)(a), a sentencing court must consider an applicable guideline, not explain it. ¶ 43 Grady's contention that § 973.017(2)(a) requires an explanation on the record is similar to that put forward by the defendant in State v. Echols : The defendant asks this court to adopt a new rule of law requiring a sentencing court to specifically address on the record each of the factors. . . . We refuse to adopt such a rule. The trial court is in the best position to determine the relevant factors in each particular case. State v. Echols, 175 Wis.2d 653, 683, 499 N.W.2d 631 (1993). For the same reason, we reject Grady's suggestion that § 973.017(2)(a) requires the sentencing court to explain its use of any applicable guideline. ¶ 44 Based on the enacted language and context, we hold that a circuit court satisfies its § 973.017(2)(a) obligation when the record of the sentencing hearing demonstrates that the court actually considered the sentencing guidelines and so stated on the record. ¶ 45 Although the concept of sentencing guidelines has existed for over 25 years, there has been uncertainty about their use. Because our holding will require different practices by circuit courts sentencing defendants, this decision will become effective for any sentencing occurring after September 1, 2007.