State v. Travis
813 N.W.2d 702
Wis. Ct. App.2012Background
- Travis was charged with attempting to have sexual contact with a child under the age of twelve; the information mis-stated a mandatory five-year minimum.
- All participants throughout charging, plea negotiations, plea, and sentencing believed a five-year mandatory minimum applied.
- After sentencing, appellate counsel found there was no mandatory minimum and sought resentencing on due process grounds, arguing a structural error.
- The circuit court acknowledged the mistake permeated the file but treated it as harmless, basing sentence largely on Travis's prior record and convicting under § 948.02(1)(d).
- The court denied resentencing; the judgment reflected § 948.02(1)(d) despite the evidence suggesting § 948.02(l)(e) was the correct statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the information inaccurate about a five-year minimum? | Travis | State | Yes, information was inaccurate |
| Did the circuit court rely on the inaccurate information? | Travis | State | Yes, court relied on it |
| Is the error trial error or structural error? | Travis | State | Structural error |
| What is the appropriate remedy for a structural error? | Travis | State | Remand for resentencing and amend judgment to § 948.02(l)(e) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hansbrough, 334 Wis. 2d 237 (Wis. App. 2011) (structural errors per se prejudicial; define framework defects)
- State v. Tiepelman, 291 Wis. 2d 179 (Wis. 2006) (harms from inaccurate information in sentencing process)
- State v. Payette, 313 Wis. 2d 39 (Wis. App. 2008) (burden-shifting framework for harmless error in sentencing)
- Brown v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 703 (Wis. 1976) (informational sufficiency of complaint; statute reference cannot replace essential facts)
- Williams v. State, 47 Wis. 2d 242 (Wis. 1970) (essential facts required in complaint to establish probable cause)