Opinion ID: 1740378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Review of a Court's Consideration of a Sentencing Guideline

Text: ¶ 16 We first address whether Wis. Stat. § 973.017(10) precludes appellate review of a circuit court's consideration of an applicable sentencing guideline pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.017(2)(a). Wisconsin Stat. § 973.017(10) provides the following: (10) USE OF GUIDELINES; NO RIGHT OR BASIS FOR APPEAL. The requirement under sub. (2)(a) that a court consider sentencing guidelines adopted by the sentencing commission or the criminal penalties study committee does not require a court to make a sentencing decision that is within any range or consistent with a recommendation specified in the guidelines, and there is no right to appeal a court's sentencing decision based on the court's decision to depart in any way from any guideline. The plain language of the statute begins by clarifying that § 973.017(2)(a) does not require that a circuit court impose a sentence that falls within the range provided by an applicable sentencing guideline. ¶ 17 After clarifying that § 973.017(2)(a) does not require a circuit court to impose a certain sentence, § 973.017(10) provides that there is no right to appeal a court's sentencing decision based on the court's decision to depart in any way from any guideline. Accordingly, a circuit court's departure from an applicable sentencing guideline does not provide a defendant with grounds for appeal. ¶ 18 Nothing in the language of § 973.017(10) suggests that a circuit court's failure to consider an applicable sentencing guideline pursuant to § 973.017(2)(a) is not a valid grounds for appeal. Therefore, we conclude that like the other provisions of Wis. Stat. ch. 973 that establish obligations for circuit courts during sentencing, an appellate court may review whether or not a circuit court satisfied its § 973.017(2)(a) obligation. [5] ¶19 The court of appeals did not interpret § 973.017(10) as we have. A distinct interpretation of the statute's language did not cause the difference. Rather, the difference arises because the court of appeals concluded that previous holdings of appellate courts had provided an interpretation of similar statutory language and the legislature had enacted § 973.017(2)(a) with knowledge of that interpretation. Grady, 296 Wis.2d 295, ¶ 5, 722 N.W.2d 760. Therefore, the court of appeals concluded the prior interpretation bound it to hold that § 973.017(10) precludes appellate review of the circuit court's consideration of an applicable sentencing guideline. Id., ¶ 8, 722 N.W.2d 760. ¶ 20 A prior interpretation of a statute is applied when courts subsequently consider the same statute. Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. Romanshek, 2005 WI 67, ¶ 41, 281 Wis.2d 300, 697 N.W.2d 417. The court may overturn a prior interpretation of a statute when it has been shown not only that [the previous decision] was mistaken but also that it was objectively wrong, so that the court has a compelling reason to overrule it. Wenke v. Gehl Co., 2004 WI 103, ¶ 21, 274 Wis.2d 220, 682 N.W.2d 405. Our adherence to a previous interpretation applies to both decisions of this court and the court of appeals. State v. Douangmala, 2002 WI 62, ¶ 42, 253 Wis.2d 173, 646 N.W.2d 1. ¶ 21 Four cases, both decided by this court and the court of appeals, addressed issues related to language similar to § 973.017(10). State v. Elam, 195 Wis.2d 683, 538 N.W.2d 249 (1995); State v. Speer, 176 Wis.2d 1101, 501 N.W.2d 429 (1993); State v. Smet, 186 Wis.2d 24, 519 N.W.2d 697 (Ct.App.1994); Halbert, 147 Wis.2d 123, 432 N.W.2d 633. [6] For a variety of reasons, we conclude that none of the previous cases addressing issues related to the language of § 973.017(10) binds this court as it considers whether the statute precludes appellate review of a circuit court's failure to consider pertinent sentencing guidelines. ¶ 22 In Halbert, the court of appeals was not presented with the issue of whether the language of § 973.017(10) precluded an appellate court from reviewing the circuit court's failure to consider pertinent sentencing guidelines. The defendant contended that the circuit court erred when it failed to consider the sentencing guideline. The Halbert court noted that [n]o matter how denominated, however, the crux of his complaint is that the ninety month sentence did not fall within the guidelines. Halbert, 147 Wis.2d at 129, 432 N.W.2d 633. The facts of the case supported the court's assessment: the [sentencing] court signed the form, which indicates the guideline was considered. Id. at 130 n. 3, 432 N.W.2d 633. The Halbert court did not hold that a circuit court's failure to consider the applicable sentencing guideline was not a reviewable issue on appeal. That issue was not before the court. ¶ 23 With Halbert's contention on appeal characterized as a claim that the circuit court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines, the Halbert court held that the express language of Wis. Stat. § 973.012 (1993-94) precluded its review of the issue. Id. at 130, 432 N.W.2d 633. Wisconsin Stat. § 973.012 explicitly stated that [t]here shall be no right to appeal on the basis of the trial court's decision to render a sentence that does not fall within the sentencing guidelines. ¶ 24 Subsequent cases have characterized Halbert in a way that suggest it did reach a holding on the issue of whether a circuit court's consideration of a sentencing guideline was reviewable. First, this court stated that [i]n State v. Halbert , the District I court of appeals interpreted the last sentence of § 973.012, Stats., as precluding review of a circuit court's alleged failure to consider the guidelines and/or to place its reasons for deviating from the record. Speer, 176 Wis.2d at 1120, 501 N.W.2d 429 (citations omitted). Then, the court of appeals followed suit and stated that  Halbert held that the last sentence of § 973.012 precluded review of a circuit court's alleged failure to consider the guidelines and/or to place its reasons for deviating from the guidelines on the record. Smet, 186 Wis.2d at 31 n. 2, 519 N.W.2d 697 (citing Speer, 176 Wis.2d at 1120, 501 N.W.2d 429). Finally, this court stated that [i]n State v. Halbert , the court of appeals held that a sentencing court's failure to consider the sentencing guidelines is not subject to appellate review. Elam, 195 Wis.2d at 685, 538 N.W.2d 249 (citations omitted). ¶ 25 The prior characterizations of Halbert do not represent holdings of any appellate court. In Speer, the issue of whether § 973.012 precluded appellate review of the circuit court's consideration of a sentencing guideline arose. However, a majority of the court did not agree on a holding related to the issue. The lead opinion stated the following in Part II: [T]he legislature did not intend by the language of the last sentence of [§ 973.012] to preclude appellate review of a sentence imposed without consideration of the sentencing guidelines. The last sentence of the statute is unambiguous and means what it says; a defendant has no right to appeal a sentence solely because the sentence exceeds the guidelines. Section 973.012, Stats., does not deprive an appellate court of jurisdiction to consider whether the sentencing court erroneously exercised its discretion by failing to follow the statutory mandate to consider the sentence guidelines and state on the record its reasons for deviating from the guidelines. An appellate court must review the entire record to ascertain whether the circuit court has complied with these statutory mandates, regardless of any statements to the contrary found in Halbert. To the extent Halbert indicates otherwise, it is overruled. Speer, 176 Wis.2d at 1122-23, 501 N.W.2d 429 (citations omitted). Because only three of six justices joined Part II of the lead opinion, a majority of this court did not adopt the lead opinion's assessment of Halbert. [7] On other grounds, the court did unanimously affirm the judgment of the circuit court. ¶ 26 In Smet, the defendant relied on the lead Speer opinion to contend that he could seek review of whether failure to follow a sentencing guideline constituted an erroneous exercise of discretion. The State argued that Speer was not controlling authority on the issue of compliance with § 973.012. The Smet court concluded that it need not be concerned whether Speer is binding precedent. Smet, 186 Wis.2d at 30 n. 2, 519 N.W.2d 697. The court of appeals did not reach a holding on whether a circuit court's consideration of a sentencing guideline is reviewable. ¶ 27 In Elam, the court again considered whether § 973.012 prohibited appellate review of a circuit court's failure to consider a sentencing guideline. Like in Speer, the court was evenly divided on the issue. [8] ¶ 28 Up to this point, there has not been a holding that § 973.017(10) or § 973.012 precluded appellate review of a circuit court's consideration of an applicable sentencing guideline. In this case, the court is unanimous. Wisconsin Stat. § 973.017(10) does not preclude appellate review to determine whether a circuit court considered a sentencing guideline.