Court Opinion

ID: 9727935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:53:11.793598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:44.385281
License: Public Domain

NETTESHEIM, J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority opinion. I write further only to elaborate on the majority's concluding footnote which properly suggests that the trial court expressly obtain an admission from the defendant to a read-in charge.
*81A read-in charge is usually accompanied by three conditions: (1) the defendant acknowledges responsibility for the uncharged or dismissed read-in charge, (2) the defendant agrees that the trial court may consider the read-in charge for purposes of sentencing on the charges of which the defendant is convicted, and (3) the defendant accepts responsibility for restitution relating to the read-in charge. Therefore, I suggest that a trial court's personal colloquy with the defendant under Bangert2 additionally establish that the defendant understands and accepts all of these conditions, or any others which might apply.
This procedure can minimize the number of post-conviction motions and appeals challenging a trial court's use of a read-in charge. And, even where such motion or appeal is brought, the judicial resolution of the issue will often be facilitated.

State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986).