McKnight v. State

Jan 5, 1971
State 98
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Hansen
Robert W. Hansen, J.

Here, as in a very recent case raising the identical issue, 2 we hold that “. . . the juvenile record of the defendant, as presented, ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍was properly *625 before the court as such evidence of a pattern of behavior,” 3 and “. . . find no error in the trial court being informed of defendant’s prior contacts with juvenile authorities, even though resulting commitments were subsequently set aside.” 4 It is true that the information as to prior juvenile experiences reached ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍the trial court in Neely as part of a presentence report rather than, as here, by testimony during the hearing on the guilty plea. While a presentence report may throw additional light on a defendant’s total juvenile behavior pattern, we would not require that evidence of a behavior pattern be filtered ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍through a presentence report before it can be properly considered by a sentencing court. Neely controls and requires affirmance.

By the Court. — Order affirmed.

Notes

2

Neely v. State (1970), 47 Wis. 2d 330, 177 N. W. 2d 79. (See also: Neely v. Quatsoe (E. D. C. Wis. 1970), 317 Fed. Supp. 40, 42, denying writ of habeas corpus, stating: “. . . the ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍trial judge, before sentencing, was entitled to inquire as to the youth’s personal background, including his previous attendance at correctional institutions.”)

3

Id. at page 335. (See also: Waddell v. State (1964), 24 Wis. 2d 364, 129 N. W. 2d 201; Deja v. State (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 488, 168 N. W. 2d 856.)

4

Id. at page 336. (See also: Waddell v. ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍State, supra, footnote 3, at page 368, holding “The prosecuting attorney may properly use information relating to complaints of other offenses in his argument on sentence. . . .”) (Emphasis supplied.)