State v. Williams
833 N.W.2d 846
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- Williams appeals a conviction for seventh-offense OWI (class G felony) under Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(g)2.
- At sentencing, Williams argued § 346.65(2)(am)6. does not facially require a mandatory three-year minimum confinement for seventh offenses.
- Under a plea agreement, the State recommended six years with three years initial confinement; Williams could argue for less.
- The circuit court rejected Williams' interpretation and imposed six years with three years initial confinement and three years of extended supervision.
- Williams contends sentencing was erroneous because the court believed a mandatory minimum applied, which affected sentencing decision.
- The court of appeals reverses the judgment, remanding for resentencing, because the sentencing court acted under a mistaken belief regarding the mandatory minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 346.65(2)(am)6. imposes a mandatory minimum confinement | Williams argues no facial mandatory minimum | State argues yes, it requires a three-year minimum if bifurcated sentence imposed | Statute unambiguous that minimum applies if bifurcated sentence is imposed, not that bifurcation is mandatory |
| Whether the circuit court erred by sentencing Williams under a mistaken belief | Williams asserts error from misreading the mandatory-minimum requirement | State contends sentencing under the mistaken belief affected only procedure | Judgment reversed and remanded for resentencing due to mistaken belief in mandatory minimum |
| Is § 346.65(2)(am)6. ambiguous or plain in its meaning | Williams treats the text as plain but nuanced by bifurcation | State contends the plain language resolves the issue | Statute deemed plain by majority; no ambiguity |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalal v. Circuit Court of Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation framework; plain meaning if unambiguous)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (methodology for interpreting statutes)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Green, 311 Wis. 2d 715 (Wis. App. 2008) (plain meaning and ambiguity analysis guidance)
- Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 309 Wis. 2d 541 (Wis. 2008) (whether statute is plain or ambiguous; context of prior versions)
- Affeldt v. Green Lake Cnty., 335 Wis. 2d 104 (Wis. 2011) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)