State v. Christopher W. Yakich, 970 N.W.2d 12

Defendant Christopher Yakich faced two Waupaca County prosecutions and entered a global resolution: guilty/admission and NGI findings to 3 counts of felony bail jumping and 1 count of phone harassment.
At the December 2018 hearing the circuit court accepted the NGI pleas and, at the State's request, ordered NGI commitments of 2 years in one case and 3 years in the other, to run consecutively (total five years) and ordered institutionalization for treatment.
Yakich appealed, arguing § 971.17 does not authorize consecutive NGI commitments and that the terms therefore must run concurrently.
The court of appeals affirmed (relying on State v. C.A.J.), and this Court granted review to decide whether § 971.17 permits consecutive NGI commitments.
The Supreme Court concluded that § 971.17 ties NGI commitment length to the maximum prison/confinement terms in criminal sentencing and therefore permits cumulative (consecutive) commitment periods; the circuit court and court of appeals were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether circuit courts may impose consecutive NGI commitment periods under Wis. Stat. § 971.17	§ 971.17 ties NGI maximums to criminal confinement terms, and criminal sentences can be consecutive; C.A.J. supports cumulative maximums	§ 971.17 does not explicitly authorize consecutive NGI commitments; commitments are not criminal sentences and must run concurrently	Court held § 971.17 authorizes consecutive NGI commitment periods; five-year consecutive commitment affirmed
Whether later statutory amendments or legislative history abrogated C.A.J. or prohibit use of consecutive sentencing calculations	The 2001 amendments and removal of an explicit cross-reference did not change the statute’s operation tying NGI limits to criminal sentencing lengths	Removal of the § 973.15 cross-reference shows legislative intent to prohibit considering consecutive criminal sentences	Court rejected defendant’s history argument and concluded amendments did not alter the operative rule that NGI maximums can reflect cumulative criminal confinement terms

State v. C.A.J., 148 Wis. 2d 137 (Ct. App. 1988) (calculated NGI maximum by adding maximum imprisonment for multiple offenses, treating the NGI cap as reflecting consecutive sentences)
State v. Fugere, 386 Wis. 2d 76 (2019 WI 33) (reaffirms that NGI commitment terms are limited by maximum criminal confinement terms)
State v. Harr, 211 Wis. 2d 584 (Ct. App. 1997) (held an NGI commitment is not a criminal sentence and considered whether criminal sentences may run consecutive to NGI commitments)
State ex rel. Helmer v. Cullen, 149 Wis. 2d 161 (Ct. App. 1989) (noting the NGI maximum must be based on consecutive terms)
State v. Randall, 192 Wis. 2d 800 (1995) (stating NGI commitment may not exceed maximum imprisonment for charged offenses)
Grobarchik v. State, 102 Wis. 2d 461 (1981) (authority to fashion criminal dispositions must derive from statute)