Court Opinion

ID: 9572168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:39:16.221974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:45.460656
License: Public Domain

DYKMAN, P.J.
(concurring). We have remanded for resentencing because we have frustrated the trial court's structuring of Harr's sentence. The parties have *598necessarily not briefed the issue of whether Harr's yet-to-be-received sentence might violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 See State v. Martin, 121 Wis. 2d 670, 360 N.W.2d 43 (1985). In double jeopardy sentencing cases, the supreme court distinguishes between illegal sentences and erroneous sentences. Id. at 681, 360 N.W.2d at 49. Were I writing for the majority, I would footnote this distinction so that the parties and the trial court could consider it when Harr is resentenced.

 We generally will not address issues the parties have not raised. Waushara County v. Graf, 166 Wis. 2d 442, 451, 480 N.W.2d 16, 19 (1992). I agree that we should not address this unbriefed issue.