State v. Harris, 819 N.W.2d 350

Background

Harris was convicted in 2006 for use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime and received a total sentence of 11.5 years.
He began extended supervision in 2008 and was revoked in 2009 based on alleged violations including irregular electronic monitoring, unapproved contact with minors, and unapproved contact with an adult.
The DOC revocation summary detailed numerous warrants and various supervision violations, and the summary presented a predominantly negative portrayal of Harris's conduct.
Before reconfinement, Harris’s counsel submitted a letter from his treatment provider and his own signed statement; no live testimony was introduced to rebut the DOC summary.
At reconfinement, the court and counsels reviewed the DOC summary; defense counsel indicated there were no factual errors, while postrevocation counsel later submitted extensive exhibits.
Harris moved for postrevocation relief alleging ineffective assistance of reconfinement counsel for failing to present accurate information and seeking a Machner hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Harris's motion alleged facts entitling relief and requiring a Machner hearing	Harris asserts inaccuracies in the DOC summary affected sentencing and counsel failed to challenge them.	State contends the motion does not warrant a hearing because inaccuracies were harmless or outweighed by other evidence.	Remand for a Machner hearing.
Whether reconfinement counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the not registered statement	Counsel failed to object to the court's inaccurate statement that Harris did not register.	State argues no prejudice since other evidence supported the sentence.	Counsel deficient and prejudice shown; Machner hearing required.
Whether the DOC summary, viewed as a whole, misrepresented Harris's supervision record to the reconfinement court	Summary was technically true but misleading when read collectively, and postrevocation evidence would counter it.	Summary facts were technically true and adequately portrayed Harris's conduct.	Misleading overall portrayal; insufficient without a Machner hearing to weigh counter-evidence.
Whether reconfinement court had authority to modify Harris's original sentence during reconfinement	Reconfinement court could modify the original sentence under inherent authority or other theories.	Reconfinement court lacks authority to modify the original sentence via reconfinement proceedings.	Reconfinement court has no authority to modify the original sentence; sentence modification not available in reconfinement.

Key Cases Cited

Tiepelman v. State, 291 Wis. 2d 179 (Wis. 2006) (due process right to be sentenced on accurate information; threshold for relief via misinforming evidence)
State v. Erickson, 596 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 1999) (ineffective assistance standard for postconviction claims; waiver analysis intertwined)
State v. Balliette, 336 Wis. 2d 358 (Wis. 2011) (pleading standards for postconviction relief and related analysis)
State v. Noll, 258 Wis. 2d 573 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002) (trial court inherent authority to modify sentences; not controlling in reconfinement context)
State v. Hall, 304 Wis. 2d 504 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) (reconfinement authority limits under Wis. Stat. § 302.113(9)(am))
State v. Scaccio, 240 Wis. 2d 95 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) (recognizes limits of appeals and postrevocation challenges to reconfinement)
State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979) (Machner hearing standard for evaluating ineffective assistance at postconviction stage)