Court Opinion

ID: 9685356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:33:45.7342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:05.063751
License: Public Domain

*159DONALD W. STEINMETZ, J.
¶ 32. {dissenting). I believe that precedential case law from this court mandates that on resentencing to correct an invalid sentence, a circuit court should only consider information that was available to the court at the time of the original sentencing. Consequently, I dissent from the majority opinion.
¶ 33. Grobarchik v. State, 102 Wis. 2d 461, 307 N.W.2d 170 (1981), involved the improper sentencing of a criminal defendant by the trial court, and the proper means by which to remedy such an invalid sentence. The court held "that a resentencing proceeding is the proper method for correcting the type of error involved in this matter." Id. at 466. This court distinguished the situation in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) involving a resentencing after a recon-viction, from the situation in Grobarchik where the original conviction was valid, but the original sentence was not. 102 Wis. 2d at 471-72. In doing so, this court explained the rules applicable in a resentencing based on an invalid conviction:
When a defendant is resentenced for the purpose of correcting a prior invalid sentence, and when, as compared with the original sentence, the liberty interests of the defendant are substantially and adversely affected, the trial court must state on the record the reasons for so modifying the first sentence. His reasons must bé based upon a desire to implement the original dispositional scheme as manifested by the record in the first sentencing proceeding.
Id. at 474 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, based on this court's decision in Grobarchik, when resentencing a defendant based on an original, invalid sentence, a court must consider only the facts and cir*160cumstances as they existed at the time of the first sentencing proceeding.
¶ 34. This court relied on the Grobarchik opinion in State v. Martin, 121 Wis. 2d 670, 360 N.W.2d 43 (1985), an opinion written for the court by Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson.1 Martin involved questions regarding the proper means of resentencing a defendant after one of his two original convictions was vacated on double jeopardy principles. The court concluded that it was proper for the judge on resentencing to rely only on the original dispositional scheme as it existed at the time of the first sentencing. It explained as follows:
Applying the principles set forth in Grobarchik, we conclude that because the circuit judge resentenced this defendant to correct a prior invalid sentence, the circuit court correctly attempted to implement the original dispositional scheme reflected by the record in the first sentencing proceeding. The new sentence was properly based on the record as initially compiled by the sentencing judge without any new evidence.
Id. at 688 (emphasis added).
¶ 35. In the majority opinion in the case at bar, State v. Carter, the court indicates that it is treating "the present case. . .as one involving a resentencing following an invalid initial sentence." Majority op. at 147, note 3. Because this case involves an invalid sentence, precedent from this court requires that the resentencing court base the new sentence "on the *161record as initially compiled by the sentencing judge without any new evidence." Martin, 121 Wis. 2d at 688.
¶ 36. Although the majority skirts the issue in its opinion in Carter, it is effectively overruling two decisions from this court, Grobarchik and Martin. Ignoring the plain language of these cases, as cited above, the majority attempts to distinguish these precedents by arguing, without support from the cases themselves, that "they are limited to their facts" and that the rules of these cases were "to assure compliance with the due process principle that vindictiveness must play no role in resentencing." Majority op. at 155-56. However, in a recent decision written on behalf of this court by Chief Justice Abrahamson, the court noted that "when a court of last resort intentionally takes up, discusses, and decides a question germane to, though not necessarily decisive of, the controversy, such decision is not a dictum but is a judicial act of the court which it will thereafter recognize as a binding decision." Risser v. Klauser, 207 Wis. 2d 177, 558 N.W.2d 108 (1997) (citations omitted). Consequently, the rules of Grobarchik and Martin are binding decisions of this court. I am unpersuaded by attempts of the majority to distinguish these cases and am convinced that the distinctions it offers are unfounded.
¶ 37. The majority opinion flies in the face of the long-standing principles of the doctrine of stare decisis. "[T]he doctrine of stare decisis. . . is a doctrine that demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law." Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416, 419-20 (1983), overruled on other grounds by Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Such "fidelity to precedent" helps to ensure that the existing law will "not be abandoned without strong justification." State *162v. Stevens, 181 Wis. 2d 410, 441, 511 N.W.2d 591 (1994) (Abrahamson, J., concurring), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 115 S. Ct. 2245 (1995). When existing law "is open to revision in every case, 'deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will, with arbitrary and unpredictable results.'" Citizens Utility Bd. v. Klauser, 194 Wis. 2d 484, 513, 534 N.W.2d 608 (1995) (Abrahamson, J., dissenting) (citation omitted). Unless there is a compelling reason to divert from its precedent, a court should abide by the precedent it has established.
¶ 38. As I explained above, the majority in this case has effectively overruled its own precedent set in Grobarchik and Martin, but has done so without any "strong justification." Instead, the majority relies on several cases that can be easily distinguished from this case, North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969); State v. Stubbendick, 110 Wis. 2d 693, 698-700, 329 N.W.2d 399 (1983); Denny v. State, 47 Wis. 2d 541, 545-46, 178 N.W.2d 38 (1970), in support of its ultimate holding. Each of these cases involved a resentencing that took place after the defendant's original conviction had been vacated and he had been reconvicted. In such a case, where the initial conviction has been vacated, it is as though the initial sentence never existed. Under those circumstances, it would be perfectly natural for a sentencing court to consider all relevant information at the time of this resentencing because the "original dispositional scheme" would consist of the factors in existence at the time of the reconviction and resentencing.
¶ 39. In the case at bar, the original conviction has not been vacated; it still stands. This is not a situation like that in Pearce, Stubbendick, or Denny. Instead, this case involves a need for a resentencing based on a previous invalid sentence. This court has *163concluded that there is a difference between these two scenarios, and that when a resentencing is needed due to an invalid sentence, the court should consider only the factors in the record at the time of the original sentencing. See Grobarchik, 102 Wis. 2d at 472 ("[t]he facts of Pearce are distinguishable from the present controversy"); Martin, 121 Wis. 2d at 686 (the Pearce rule "applies only to resentencing after retrial").
¶ 40. Instead, this case is much more similar to the court of appeals' decision in State v. Solles, 169 Wis. 2d 566, 485 N.W.2d 457 (Ct. App. 1992). Solles was originally sentenced to terms totaling 60 years' imprisonment — 30 years for armed robbery, 25 years for second-degree murder, and five years for concealing his identity. Twelve years later, the court vacated the sentences and ordered that Solles be resentenced because a separate sentence for concealing identity, a penalty-enhancer, was improper. At the resentencing hearing, Solles presented evidence of his good conduct in prison and of his educational achievements, employment prospects, and character references. The trial court concluded that it could not consider Solles' post-conviction conduct or his present character.
¶ 41. In affirming the trial court, the court of appeals held that "the sentence must be based upon the circumstances as they existed when the original sentence was imposed." 169 Wis. 2d at 567. The Solles court based its decision on this court's decisions in Martin, 121 Wis. 2d 670, and Grobarchik, 102 Wis. 2d 461, which were summed up in Solles as standing for the proposition that the " 'original dispositional scheme,' and therefore the circumstances at the time of the original sentence, control the resentencing." Id. at 569.
¶ 42. The State in the present case, State v. Carter, urges this court to uphold Solles. The State *164argues that the rule in Solles does not prevent a trial court from sentencing a defendant based on accurate and relevant information. The State claims that Carter incorrectly assumes that all new information is relevant despite the reason for resentencing and ignores the fact that a defendant in Wisconsin has other avenues to place such new evidence before the court, such as a sentence modification hearing. I find the arguments of the State persuasive, and believe that this court should uphold Solles because it is based on controlling precedent from this court.
¶ 43. The court in Solles also cites two policy reasons for not allowing a court to consider a defendant's present character and good record at sentencing: 1) allowing such consideration would benefit the small number of defendants whose sentences are vacated because of the fortuity of a sentencing error; and 2) allowing such consideration would usurp the role of the parole board. Id. at 571. This court should consider the policy impiications of its decisions before rendering them. In this case, policy considerations such as these were quickly dismissed by the majority with little discussion. I believe that such policy considerations are valid concerns, and that the Solles court accurately identified two potential downfalls of the new rule proposed by the majority.
¶ 44. In conclusion, I would affirm the court of appeals' decision that a court should only consider the information as it existed at the time of the initial sentencing proceeding when it is resentencing a defendant. Case law from this court requires this rule, and it is a rule that makes sense. Otherwise, there is a lack of finality to sentences; only a few defendants are rewarded because they are fortunate enough to have initially received an invalid sentence, and the role of *165the parole board is usurped. However, I agree with the State that the court of appeals' decision in State v. Pierce, 117 Wis. 2d 83, 342 N.W.2d 776 (Ct. App. 1983), must be overruled because it violates the rule established in Grobarchik and Martin. See majority op. at 150-51, 155-56. Consequently, I would reverse that portion of the court of appeals' decision upholding its earlier decision in Pierce. A defendant seeking to introduce positive changes, or a prosecutor seeking to use negative changes, may properly do so either through a motion for modification of sentence or by appearing before a parole board. The motion for modification may be heard at the same time as the resentencing hearing.
¶ 45. For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm in part and reverse in part the court of appeals' decision.
¶ 46. I am authorized to state that JUSTICES Jon P. Wilcox and N. Patrick Crooks join this dissenting opinion.

 Chief Justice Abrahamson is the author of the majority opinion in State v. Carter, 208 Wis. 2d 142, 560 N.W.2d 256 (1997).