Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

8. Boot camp/ERP

State v. Jack B. Gramza, 2020 WI App 81; case activity (including briefs) If an inmate serving the initial confinement (IC) portion of a bifurcated sentence completes the Substance Abuse Program (SAP), § 302.05(3)(c)2. mandates that the sentencing court “shall” modify the inmate’s sentence by converting the remaining period of IC to extended supervision (ES)… Read more

{ 1 comment }

State v. Tiron Justin Grant, 2014AP2965-CR, District 1, 11/24/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) The court serially takes up and rejects each of Grant’s challenges to his conviction, at trial, of possessing cocaine with intent to deliver, as well as the sentencing court’s denial of ERP/SAP and CIP eligibility. Various police officers testified… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Johnny E. Miller, 2014AP1392-CR, 2/18/05, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity Miller argued that the State breached its plea agreement with him when, at sentencing, it recommended that he be eligible for the Earned Release Program only after he served a specified period of prison time. The State, he claimed… Read more

{ 2 comments }

State v. Brandon M. Pokey, 2012AP2412-CR, District 2, 8/14/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity The sentencing court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it made Pokey, who was convicted of armed robbery of a bank, ineligible for the Earned Release Program. At sentencing the court based its decision on… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Sentencing – Boot Camp (CIP), Generally

State v. Jeremy D. Schladweiler, 2009 WI App 177 Pro se Issue/Holding: ¶9        Commonly referred to as “boot camp,” the CIP is governed by Wis. Stat. § 302.045, which provides that “the [DOC] shall provide a challenge incarceration program for inmates selected to participate” after meeting the eligibility requirements for the program. Sec. 302.045(1). … ¶10     … Read more

{ 0 comments }

Reconfinement – Lack of Authority to Consider CIP or ERP Eligibility

State v. Antonio M. Hall, 2007 WI App 168 For Hall: Michael D. Kaiser Issue/Holding: ¶17   From our examination of these statutory provisions, we find no ambiguity in the relevant language and conclude that the provisions of Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01(3g), 973.01(3m) and 302.113(9)(am) express a clear intent to restrict the sentencing discretion of the reconfinement… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Kathy J. Johnson, 2007 WI App 41 For Johnson: Jeremy Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether DOC policy, for inmates under sentence commencing prior to July 26, 2003, to take no position on an ERP petition constitutes approval of the petition under Wis. Stat. § 302.05(3)(e). Holding: ¶8        Wisconsin Stat. § 302.05(3)(e) governs inmate petitions… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jonathan Owens, 2006 WI App 75, PFR filed 4/4/06 For Owens: Dianne M. Erickson Issue: Whether the sentencing court’s initial denial of ERP eligibility, seemingly on the improper basis of the defendant’s age, was a proper exercise of discretion where on motion for reconsideration the court “stated that it had intended to refer to Owens’s… Read more

{ 0 comments }