Court Opinion

ID: 9579815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:58:54.79742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:48.313417
License: Public Domain

GARTZKE, P.J.
(concurring). The prosecutor and the defense attorney asked the trial court to sentence Wills to life plus five years consecutive, the parole board to determine his parole eligibility. The prosecutor stated that she "would strongly recommend this plea to the court." The court directed that a presentence investigation report be furnished to it.
Later the court wrote to the prosecution and defense, noting its obligation under § 973.014, Stats., to either let the parole commission set the parole eligibility date under § 304.06(1), Stats., or to set the parole eligibility date itself for any date after the earliest possible date calculated under § 304.06(1). The court sought assistance on setting a parole date, should it decide not to leave the matter to the parole board, and later stated that seeking such assistance was its intent when writing the letter.
The prosecution could not comply with both the trial court’s request and the plea bargain. The prosecution was bound by the terms of the plea bargain to request that parole eligibility be set by the parole board. To assist the court in its setting Wills's parole eligibility date was inconsistent with the State's bargain because the date set by the court would *539necessarily be later than the earliest date the parole board could set.
Because the court's request for assistance was inconsistent with the plea bargain, the prosecutor should have declined to make any response, other than point out the inconsistency and reiterate its recommendation that the parole board determine Wills's parole eligibility.