WI Supreme Court issues rulings for two Truth-in-Sentencing cases.

• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued two Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS) cases on April 21, holding that the enactment of TIS-II (the second stage of sentence reform), lowering maximum sentences for a number of crimes, is not a new factor permitting sentence modification for those given longer sentences under TIS-I (the first stage), but that those sentenced under TIS-I are eligible for sentence reduction under TIS-II, pursuant to sec. 973.195.

On Dec. 31, 1999, Wisconsin adopted determinate sentencing - abolishing parole; and substituting determinate terms of imprisonment, followed by supervision (TIS-I).

On Feb. 1, 2003, TIS-II became effective - reclassifying crimes; permitting a reduction in sentence based on rehabilitation after 75 percent or 85 percent of the initial confinement had been served, depending on the offense; and reducing the maximum penalties for a number of crimes. As a result, many defendants convicted of felonies committed between Dec. 31, 1999, and Feb. 1, 2003, were given sentences longer than the maximum allowed before TIS-I or currently allowed.

Trujillo

In 2002, Jose A. Trujillo was convicted of burglary and fourth-degree sexual assault. The circuit court sentenced Trujillo to a term of eight years of confinement and five years of extended supervision for the felony burglary conviction, and a consecutive incarceration term of nine months for the misdemeanor sexual assault.

Before TIS-I, burglary carried a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment Under TIS-I, the maximum penalty was increased to 15 years of imprisonment, of which up to ten years could be imposed as initial confinement. Under TIS-II, the maximum penalty became 12 1/2 years, of which the term of initial confinement may not exceed 71/2 years. Thus, under TIS-I, Trujillo was sentenced to six months more initial confinement than was possible for the same offense under TIS-II, and more than he would have served under the old system, with mandatory parole.

Trujillo brought a postconviction motion on April 8, 2003, seeking modification of his burglary sentence. The circuit court denied the motion, relying on State v. Hegwood, 113 Wis.2d 544, 335 N.W.2d 399 (1983), which held, "the change in the statute does not effect the penalties created by the former statute unless the Legislature specifically and expressly abrogates the penalties and indicated that it would relate back in some fashion."

Trujillo appealed, but the court of appeals affirmed...