State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230
For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn
¶13 Montroy also argues that the PSI improperly included two of his juvenile adjudications, when there was no evidence that he was represented by counsel.  The State concedes that the Department of Corrections guidelines mandate that unrepresented juvenile adjudications should not be included in a PSI. However, the State argues, and we agree, that regardless of whether the adjudications should have appeared in the PSI, the sentencing court could properly consider all of Montroy’s juvenile adjudications at sentencing. See Triplett v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 549, 551-52, 187 N.W.2d 318 (1971). Additionally, Montroy’s extensive adult criminal history was a sufficient basis for the court’s conclusion that he was an habitual criminal, and the deletion of two juvenile adjudications would not have likely changed the court’s conclusions on sentencing. Accordingly, Montroy has not met his burden to show prejudice from the two juvenile adjudications improperly included in the PSI.
 Montroy did not ask the court to correct the improper references to his juvenile history at the sentencing hearing. Instead, he raised them as a basis for his request for resentencing