State v. Brown

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed a reconfinement order imposing three years in prison on John C. Brown after revocation of his extended supervision. The court held that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and was not required to defer to the Department of Corrections' recommendation, although the recommendation should be considered. The court provided guidance on factors relevant to reconfinement decisions and affirmed the court of appeals.

Holdings

1. A circuit court must consider the DOC's reconfinement recommendation, but the recommendation is not entitled to deference and the court is not required to follow it.
2. A reconfinement decision, like an initial sentencing decision, is reviewed to determine whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion.
3. In exercising discretion at a reconfinement hearing, a circuit court should consider the DOC recommendation, the original offense, institutional conduct, the conduct and nature of the extended-supervision violation, public-protection needs, the defendant's prior record, attitude, capacity for rehabilitation, and rehabilitative goals in relation to the time remaining on the original sentence. The court should explain on the record the relevant factors supporting its decision, but the factors are guidance rather than a mandatory checklist.
4. The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion and adequately explained its decision to impose three years of reconfinement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by ordering three years of reconfinement after revocation of extended supervision.
2. Whether a circuit court must give deference to the Department of Corrections' reconfinement recommendation.
3. What factors a circuit court should consider and explain on the record when making a reconfinement decision.
4. Whether the circuit court adequately explained the basis for the three-year reconfinement period.

Disposition

affirmed