State v. Sorenson
Decision Date | 07 June 1966 |
Citation | 142 N.W.2d 785,31 Wis.2d 368 |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff in Error, v. Don Lee SORENSON, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for plaintiff in error.
Carey & Solberg, Menomonie, for defendant in error.
The sole issue on this review is whether the trial court was in error in committing the defendant to the welfare department (1) for an indeterminate term, (2) not to exceed one year, when the maxmum term for indecent behavior with a child is ten years. 2 The trial court committed the defendant in error to the department of public welfare under secs. 959.15(6) 3 and 959.05, 4 Stats.
Under sec. 959.15(6), Stats., there are only two alternatives available to the trial court when the department of public welfare recommends specialized treatment: the defendant is either placed on probation, with the condition that he or she receive prescribed inpatient or outpatient treatment, or is committed to the department. 5 After care is suggested, the trial court has no authority whatsoever to impose any sentence as such. It is only when the department determines that no treatment is required that the trial court is free to sentence the defendant as provided by law for the offense. 6
Defendant in error points to language in sec. 959.15(12), Stats., 7 which calls for the discharge of any person still committed, unless the department has applied for an order continuing control 'at the expiration of the maximum term prescribed by law for the offense for which he was convicted' and argues that this means the maximum set by the trial court under sec 959.05, Stats. But, as previously discussed, the trial court has no authority to impose any sentence when special care is suggested by the department. Furthermore, the very reference to the maximum term 'for the offense for which he was convicted' contemplates that the defendant will be subject to the control of the department for the maximum period established by the criminal statute violated--in this case ten years--and not for a maximum set by the trial judge under the indeterminate sentencing provisions. 8 This result gives full effect to the command that provisions of sec. 959.15 'shall prevail over conflicting provisions heretofore enacted.' 9
It is true, as argued by the defendant in error, that there is no practical difference in terms of results under either interpretation. This is because the department could, after appropriate hearings, continue its control over him for a full ten-year period. But this does not mean that the court is empowered to lay down an indeterminate sentence. On the contrary, the exclusive power given to the department to parole 10 or discharge 11 a defendant indicates that the department and not the court is to have the larger say in regard to the defendant's release. As this court has recognized:
12
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Clarke
...on probation with the condition that he receive treatment or to commit him to the department of public welfare. State v. Sorenson (1966), 31 Wis.2d 368, 142 N.W.2d 785; State ex rel. Copas v. Burke (1965), 28 Wis.2d 188, 136 N.W.2d 778. However, none of the cases involved a trial on two sep......
-
State v. Machner
...treatment or placed on probation with treatment." Id. at 193-94, 136 N.W.2d 778. This position was reiterated in State v. Sorenson, 31 Wis.2d 368, 371, 142 N.W.2d 785 (1966), and again in Mitchell v. State, 69 Wis.2d 695, 701, 230 N.W.2d 884 (1975). Such narrow circumscription of trial cour......
-
Nadolinski v. State
...be handled under the Criminal Code as provided in sec. 959.15(5). The defendant cites language of this court in State v. Sorenson (1966), 31 Wis.2d 368, 142 N.W.2d 785, to the effect that the trial court is obligated to commit the defendant to the department when it has recommended speciali......