State v. Sittig, 75--680--CR
| Decision Date | 01 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--680--CR,75--680--CR |
| Citation | 249 N.W.2d 770,75 Wis.2d 497 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. Bill L. SITTIG, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from an order which affirmed the July 18, 1975 order of the county court for Racine county denying the appellant's motion for reconsideration of sentence.
The appellant-defendant (hereinafter defendant) was found guilty in the county court for Racine county of two counts of operating a motor vehicle after revocation of his license, in violation of sec. 343.44(1), Stats. Pursuant to the mandatory sentencing provisions of sec. 343.44(2), Stats., he was sentenced to one year in the county jail upon each count, the sentences to be served concurrently. A motion for the reconsideration of these sentences was denied. Defendant appealed to the circuit court from the order denying the motion, contending the provision of the statute making mandatory a minimum term of imprisonment is unconstitutional as violating the doctrine of separation of powers and as constituting a denial of equal protection of the law. The circuit court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion. Defendant appeals.
Arthur B. Nathan, Racine, for appellant; Nathan & Kremkoski, Associates, Racine, on brief.
Marguerite M. Moeller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent; Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., on brief.
Two issues are presented on this appeal:
1. Is the mandatory sentencing provision of sec. 343.44(2), Stats., unconstitutional in that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers?
2. Does mandatory sentencing of persons convicted under sec. 343.44(1), Stats., deny those persons equal protection of the laws?
The defendant contends that the mandatory sentencing provision of sec. 343.44(2), Stats., violates the separation of powers doctrine in that it constitutes a legislative infringement upon the judiciary's sentencing function.
The precise issue of whether mandatory minimum sentences violates the separation of powers doctrine has never been decided by this court. However, this court has consistently adhered to the view that it is within the province of the legislature as to what punishment is to be related to a particular crime. State v. City of Monona, 63 Wis.2d 67, 72, 216 N.W.2d 230, 232 (1974); State v. Duffy, 54 Wis.2d 61, 66--67, 194 N.W.2d 624, 627 (1972); State ex rel. Schulter v. Roraff, 39 Wis.2d 342, 355, 159 N.W.2d 25, 32 (1968).
The defendant's contention that the setting by the legislature of a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment usurps the judicial power of imposition of sentence must depend upon some inherent power of the judiciary to absolutely determine the nature of the punishment. No such judicial power has been recognized in this state. Specifically, this court is committed to the doctrine that courts have no inherent power to stay or suspend execution of a sentence in a criminal case in the absence of statutory authority. Drinkwater v. State, 69 Wis.2d 60, 65--66, 230 N.W.2d 126, 128 (1975); State v. Stang Tank Line, 264 Wis. 570, 572--73, 59 N.W.2d 800, 801 (1953); Drewniak v. State ex rel. Jacquest, 239 Wis. 475, 488, 1 N.W.2d 899, 905 (1942).
In the absence of this inherent right, a court's refusal to impose a mandatory sentence or a sentence within limits prescribed by the legislature, constitutes an abuse of discretion by the court and also the usurpation of the legislative field. State v. City of Monona, supra; State v. Stang Tank Line, supra.
In State v. Duffy, supra, this court, although not specifically considering a challenge based upon the doctrine of separation of powers, held that the provision by the legislature in sec. 343.44(2), Stats., for a mandatory minimum sentence leaves the courts with no alternative but to impose a sentence of not less than the minimum prescribed upon a person for a violation of this section. The independent exercise of discretion by the courts is not unconstitutionally impaired for it may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Horn
...Branches of Government and has never been thought of as the exclusive constitutional province of any one Branch."); State v. Sittig, 75 Wis.2d 497, 499, 249 N.W.2d 770 (1977). ¶16 The legislature has authority to determine the scope of the sentencing court's discretion. The sentencing court......
-
State v. Stenklyft
...is no inherent power of the judiciary to absolutely determine the nature of the punishment." Id. at 441 (citing State v. Sittig, 75 Wis. 2d 497, 499-500, 249 N.W.2d 770 (1977)). 15. We emphasize that we do not purport to hold that sentence adjustment is the equivalent of parole. We merely r......
-
State v. Braun
...States, 61 F.2d 138 (8th Cir. 1932). But see United States v. D'Anna, 487 F.2d 899 (6th Cir. 1973).3 See also State v. Sittig, 75 Wis.2d 497, 500, 249 N.W.2d 770 (1977).1 Sec. 969.13(1), Stats., provides:"969.13 Forfeiture. (1) If the conditions of the bond are not complied with, the court ......
-
State v. Matthews
...that "it is within the province of the legislature as to what punishment is to be related to a particular crime." State v. Sittig , 75 Wis. 2d 497, 499, 249 N.W.2d 770 (1977) ; see also State v. Duffy , 54 Wis. 2d 61, 66-67, 194 N.W.2d 624 (1972) ("[I]t is within the province of the legisla......