Court Opinion

ID: 9519986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:28:50.37576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:25.394331
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM G. CALLOW, J.
(concurring). The majority opinion specifically recognizes the need for legis*318lative revision of the sentencing- statutes. This court made the same observations in Bruneau v. State, 77 Wis.2d 166, 173, 252 N.W.2d 347 (1977). The legislature did not act.
Until the legislature revises the statute, the Wisconsin convict who escapes from detention gains a sentencing advantage over the convict who does not escape. This occurs in those circumstances where the escaped convict is detained on charges in another state during the time the convict is an escapee. The escaped convict can demand to be temporarily returned to Wisconsin from the detaining state for the limited purpose of answering Wisconsin charges. If conviction results, the Wisconsin court is prohibited from imposing a sentence consecutive to the sentence the escapee was serving at the time of the escape because the escapee is not presently serving the Wisconsin sentence. The prisoner who does not escape and is brought to court from the Wisconsin correctional institution to answer other charges is, upon conviction, subject to consecutive sentences because he is presently serving a Wisconsin sentence.
Since consecutive sentencing authority legislation was intended to give the sentencing court the option to separately penalize a defendant for each individual offense, the penal status of the defendant at the time of sentencing should not selectively frustrate that intent.
I am hereby authorized to state that Mr. Justice CONNOR T. HANSEN and Mr. Justice JOHN L. COFFEY join in this concurring opinion.