Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 971.39 (2026)
Deferred prosecution program; agreements with department
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
971.39(1)(1) Except as provided in s. 967.055 (3), in counties having a population of less than 100,000, if a defendant is charged with a crime, the district attorney, the department and a defendant may all enter into a deferred prosecution agreement which includes, but is not limited to, the following conditions:
971.39(1)(a)(a) The agreement shall be in writing, signed by the district attorney or his or her designee, a representative of the department and the defendant.
971.39(1)(c)(c) The defendant agrees to participate in therapy or in community programs and to abide by any conditions imposed under the therapy or programs.
971.39(1)(e)(e) The district attorney may resume prosecution upon the defendant’s failure to meet or comply with any condition of a deferred prosecution agreement.
971.39(1)(f)(f) The circuit court shall dismiss, with prejudice, any charge which is subject to the agreement upon the completion of the period of the agreement, unless prosecution has been resumed under par. (e).
971.39(2)(2) Any written admission under sub. (1) (b) and any statement relating to the crime under sub. (1) (intro.), made by the person in connection with any discussions concerning deferred prosecution or to any person involved in a program in which the person must participate as a condition of the agreement, are not admissible in a trial for the crime.
971.39 AnnotationA judgment entered pursuant to a plea agreement withholding sentence and placing the defendant on probation for certain counts while entry of judgment on other counts was deferred provided the defendant committed no additional crimes and abided by the terms of probation was not a deferred prosecution agreement subject to this section. State v. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20, 268 Wis. 2d 810, 674 N.W.2d 916, 03-1706.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: State v. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Wollenberg argues that he pled pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) that was defective because it failed to conform to the statutory requirements of Wis. Stat. § 971.39 . 1 However, Wollenberg actually entered his plea pursuant to a plea agreement containing a…”
State v. Chu, 2002 WI App 98 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “See Wis. Stat. § 971.39 (1)(f) (upon completion of deferred prosecution agreement, the court shall dismiss the charge, with prejudice).”
State v. Kaczmarski, 2009 WI App 117 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “At the hearing on Kaczmarski's motion to compel enforcement of the agreement, defense counsel expressly stated that no statute applied to the agreement, although he expressed his belief that Wis. Stat. § 971.39 provided some guidance.”
Wolf v. Scobie, 28 F. App'x 545 (7th Cir. 2002). “See Wis. Stat. Ann. § 971.39 (1998). Although the Wolfs did not consent to a deferred prose *547 cution, Scobie nevertheless deferred prosecuting the Wolfs for one year.”
State v. Davis, 2001 WI App 63 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 971.39 Deferred prosecution program; agreements with department.”
David Vega v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 971.39(1)(f), both of the agreements at issue required that the pending charges be dismissed upon Vega’s successful completion of, and compliance with, the agreements’ terms.”
State v. Robert David Fernandez Close (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “1 The minutes from the plea hearing referred to the disposition of an additional misdemeanor in 2004CF165 and charges in four other cases— 1 Although the agreement was labeled as a deferred prosecution agreement, it called for Close to enter a plea and for the charge to be…”
State v. Derrick John Grignon (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 971.39 (governing DPAs in counties with a population of less than 100,000 people).”
— Wis. Stat. § 971.39(1)(f) — 1 case
David Vega v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 971.39(1)(f), both of the agreements at issue required that the pending charges be dismissed upon Vega’s successful completion of, and compliance with, the agreements’ terms.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.