Greenwood, who was convicted of several misdemeanors, sought resentencing on the grounds that the circuit court had relied on inaccurate information at the initial sentencing. Specifically, Greenwood alleged that the court believed his sentences would be served in jail when, in fact, § 973.03(2) required that he serve his sentences in prison. The court of appeals rejected this claim.
The court of appeals first held that there was no inaccurate information before the sentencing court:
The circuit court’s task was to sentence Greenwood for the misdemeanor convictions at issue. The court clearly and properly did so, which required, for each misdemeanor count, ordering confinement in jail. Likewise, individuals sentenced to confinement in jail are eligible to earn good time credit and may request that a sentencing court permit Huber release privileges. See Wis. Stat. §§ 302.43, 303.08(1). The court’s singular, passing reference to Greenwood’s eligibility for these potential benefits—which otherwise would have been appropriate for the imposed misdemeanor sentences—is insufficient to clearly and convincingly demonstrate the circuit court was misinformed about anything affecting Greenwood’s sentence. Furthermore, contrary to implications in Greenwood’s argument, the circuit court made no comments regarding how Greenwood’s sentences being served in jail (versus in prison) was to affect the length of his time actually served in confinement. As such, we cannot conclude that there was any misinformation at sentencing on that subject. Slip op. ¶12.
Next, the court of appeals held that even if inaccurate information were before the circuit court, it did not reply upon such information.
The court expressed no particular interest in where Greenwood would serve his sentences, but for, perhaps, its singular, passing comment concerning Greenwood’s eligibility under his misdemeanor sentences for good time and Huber privileges, which allowances were made at defense counsel’s request. Instead, as detailed above, supra ¶¶4-5, the circuit court spent the majority of its discussion, prior to pronouncing Greenwood’s sentences, on the serious nature of Greenwood’s offenses, Greenwood’s character, the need to protect the public, and, most notably, its intention to sentence Greenwood to the maximum period of confinement possible for the offenses. The sentences imposed clearly reflect this intent. The record belies the notion that the court, in structuring Greenwood’s sentences, gave “explicit attention” or “specific consideration” as to whether he would, in fact, be confined in jail versus prison, or even whether he could actually avail himself of Huber privileges or good time attendant to his misdemeanor convictions. Slip op. ¶15.