Wis. Stat. § 972.15

972.15 Presentence investigation. (1) After a convic- gation report shall keep the information in the report tion the court may order a presentence investigation, except that confidential. the court may order an employee of the department to conduct a (4r) The victim of the crime is entitled to view all sentencing presentence investigation only after a conviction for a felony. recommendations included in the presentence investigation re- (1m) If a person is convicted for a felony that requires him or port, including any recommendations under sub. (2b) or (2c), and her to register under s. 301.45 and if the victim was under 18 any portion of the presentence investigation report that contains years of age at the time of the offense, the court may order the de- information pertaining to the victim that was obtained pursuant to partment to conduct a presentence investigation report to assess sub. (2m). A victim who views any contents of a presentence in- vestigation report may not keep a copy of any portion of the re- whether the person is at risk for committing another sex offense, port and shall keep the information he or she views confidential. as defined in s. 301.45 (1d) (b). (5) The department may use the presentence investigation re- (2) When a presentence investigation report has been re- port for correctional programming, parole consideration or care ceived the judge shall disclose the contents of the report to the de- and treatment of any person sentenced to imprisonment or the in- fendant’s attorney and to the district attorney prior to sentencing. tensive sanctions program, placed on probation, released on pa- When the defendant is not represented by an attorney, the con- role or extended supervision or committed to the department un- tents shall be disclosed to the defendant. der ch. 51 or 971 or any other person in the custody of the depart- (2b) If the defendant is subject to being sentenced under s. ment or for research purposes. The department may make the re- 973.01 and he or she satisfies the criteria under s. 302.05 (3) (a) port available to other agencies or persons to use for purposes re- 1., the person preparing the presentence investigation report shall lated to correctional programming, parole consideration, care and include in the report a recommendation as to whether the defen- treatment, or research. Any use of the report under this subsec- dant should be eligible to participate in the earned release pro- tion is subject to the following conditions: gram under s. 302.05 (3). (a) If a report is used or made available to use for research pur- (2c) If the defendant is subject to being sentenced under s. poses and the research involves personal contact with subjects, 973.01 and he or she satisfies the criteria under s. 302.045 (2) (b) the department, agency or person conducting the research may and (c), the person preparing the presentence investigation report use a subject only with the written consent of the subject or the shall include in the report a recommendation as to whether the subject’s authorized representative. defendant should be eligible for the challenge incarceration pro- (b) The department or the agency or person to whom the re- gram under s. 302.045. port is made available shall not disclose the name or any other (2g) If the defendant is subject to being sentenced under s. identifying characteristics of the subject, except for disclosure to 973.01 and a factor under s. 973.017 is pertinent to the offense, appropriate staff members or employees of the department, the person preparing the presentence investigation report shall in- agency or person as necessary for purposes related to correctional clude in the report any such factor. programming, parole consideration, care and treatment, or (2m) The person preparing the presentence investigation re- research. port shall make a reasonable attempt to contact the victim to de- (6) The presentence investigation report and any information termine the economic, physical and psychological effect of the contained in it or upon which it is based may be used by any of crime on the victim. The person preparing the report may ask the following persons in any evaluation, examination, referral, any appropriate person for information. This subsection does not hearing, trial, postcommitment relief proceeding, appeal, or other preclude the person who prepares the report from including any proceeding under ch. 980: information for the court concerning the impact of a crime on the (a) The department of corrections. victim. (b) The department of health services. (2s) If the defendant is under 21 years of age, the person pre- (c) The person who is the subject of the presentence investiga- paring the presentence investigation report shall attempt to deter- tion report, his or her attorney, or an agent or employee of the mine whether the defendant has been adjudged delinquent under attorney. ch. 48, 1993 stats., or ch. 938 or has had a similar adjudication in (d) The attorney representing the state or an agent or em- any other state in the 4 years immediately preceding the date the ployee of the attorney. 2023-24 Wisconsin Statutes updated through 2025 Wis. Act 137 and through all Supreme Court Orders and Controlled Sub- stances Board Orders filed before and in effect on May 13, 2026. Published and certified under s. 35.18. Changes effective after May 13, 2026, are designated by NOTES. (Published 5-13-26)

9

(e) A licensed physician, licensed psychologist, or other men- A marital relationship between a case’s prosecutor and the presentence report writer was sufficient to draw the objectivity of the report into question. It was error tal health professional who is examining the subject of the pre- not to strike the report. State v. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. sentence investigation report. App. 1997), 96-1712. (f) The court and, if applicable, the jury hearing the case. The use of presentence reports from the underlying criminal proceeding in a ch. 980 sex offender commitment is not allowed under the sub. (5) provision for use of History: 1983 a. 102; 1987 a. 27, 227; 1991 a. 39; 1993 a. 213; 1997 a. 73, 181, the reports for care and treatment, but allowing the state’s psychologist to use, and 205, 283; 1999 a. 32; 2001 a. 109; 2003 a. 33; 2005 a. 311, 434; 2007 a. 20 s. 9121 allowing the ch. 980 jury to hear, the reports is within the court’s discretion under (6) (a); 2007 a. 80, 97; 2011 a. 273; 2013 a. 108, 338, 362; 2015 a. 196. sub. (4). State v. Zanelli, 212 Wis. 2d 358, 569 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1997), 96- The defendant was not denied due process because the trial judge refused to order 2159. a psychiatric examination and have a psychiatric evaluation included in the presen- Having disputed relevant portions of the presentence investigation at the sentenc- tence report. Hanson v. State, 48 Wis. 2d 203, 179 N.W.2d 909 (1970). ing hearing, it was trial counsel’s duty to see that the disputes were fully resolved by It is not error for the court to fail to order a presentence investigation, especially a proper hearing. Failure to do so constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. State when the record contains much information as to the defendant’s background and v. Anderson, 222 Wis. 2d 403, 588 N.W.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-3070. criminal record. State v. Schilz, 50 Wis. 2d 395, 184 N.W.2d 134 (1971). A mental health professional who conducted a psychological assessment of a de- Section 48.78 does not prevent a judge from examining Department of Health and fendant convicted of sexual assault, which was incorporated into the presentence in- Social Services records. Restrictive rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing vestigation report and admitted into evidence at the sentencing hearing, had a con- procedures. Hammill v. State, 52 Wis. 2d 118, 187 N.W.2d 792 (1971). flict of interest due to the fact that the professional had treated the victim in the case Refusal to accept a recommendation of probation does not amount to an abuse of justifying modification of the defendant’s sentence. State v. Stafford, 2003 WI App discretion if the evidence justifies a severe sentence. State v. Burgher, 53 Wis. 2d 138, 265 Wis. 2d 886, 667 N.W.2d 370, 02-0544. 452, 192 N.W.2d 869 (1972). This section applies only to court-ordered presentence investigation reports and If a presentence report is used by the trial court, it must be part of the record. Its does not refer to memorandum submitted by a defendant at sentencing nor prevent absence is not error if the defendant and counsel saw the report and had a chance to the use of the memorandum submitted at one trial at a subsequent trial. State v. correct it and if counsel approved the record without moving for its inclusion. Greve, 2004 WI 69, 272 Wis. 2d 444, 681 N.W.2d 479, 02-2332. Chambers v. State, 54 Wis. 2d 460, 195 N.W.2d 477 (1972). Under Greve, 2004 WI 69, defense counsel’s failure to object to the testimony of A presentence report, consisting of information concerning the defendant’s per- the court-ordered presentence investigator constituted deficient performance, but sonality, social circumstances, and general pattern of behavior and a section entitled failure to object to the testimony of the defense presentence investigator did not. “Agent’s Impressions,” contained neither biased nor incompetent material as such State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, 276 Wis. 2d 447, 688 N.W.2d 1, 02-1771. reports are not limited to evidence that is admissible in court, and the defendant’s re- For the limited purposes of determining the procedure for accessing the presen- port, although recommending imposition of a maximum term, contained material tence investigation report under sub. (4m), a defendant in a no-merit appeal is in the both favorable and unfavorable as to the defendant’s general pattern of behavior. same shoes as a defendant who is unrepresented. The defendant is entitled to a State v. Jackson, 69 Wis. 2d 266, 230 N.W.2d 832 (1975). meaningful viewing of the report, but may not retain a copy of it, subject to the re- Consideration by the trial court of a presentence report prior to the defendant’s quirement that the defendant keep the information in the report confidential and the plea of guilty, in violation of sub. (1), constituted at most harmless error, since the circuit court’s prerogative to redact identifying information of persons who provided evil the statute is designed to prevent—receipt by the judge of prejudicial informa- information for the report. State v. Parent, 2006 WI 132, 298 Wis. 2d 63, 725 tion while still considering the defendant’s guilt or innocence or presiding over a N.W.2d 915, 05-0661. jury trial—cannot arise in the context of a guilty plea, especially when the trial court In a no-merit appeal, as the attorney general is often the state’s successor to the had already assured itself of the voluntariness of the plea and the factual basis for the district attorney for purposes of this section, the attorney general’s office after sen- crime. Rosado v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 280, 234 N.W.2d 69 (1975). tencing must make its request to obtain a copy of the presentence investigation re- port and to disclose its contents in the state’s brief with the circuit court. State v. The sentencing judge does not deny due process by considering pending criminal Parent, 2006 WI 132, 298 Wis. 2d 63, 725 N.W.2d 915, 05-0661. charges in determining a sentence. Discussing the scope of judicial inquiry prior to Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509 (1997), does not extend to a situation in which the pro- sentencing. Handel v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 699, 247 N.W.2d 711 (1976). bation agent who prepared the presentence investigation report (PSI) was married to Information gathered in the course of a presentence investigation may not be re- another probation agent, and the two agents together were responsible for the defen- vealed at a trial following withdrawal of guilty plea. State v. Crowell, 149 Wis. 2d dant’s supervision. Suchocki is based on the conflict of interest between the prose- 859, 440 N.W.2d 352 (1989). cutor, as an agent of the state and the adversary of the defendant, and the presentence A defendant appearing with or without counsel has a due process right to read the investigator, who must serve as the neutral agent of an independent judiciary. When presentence investigation report prior to sentencing. State v. Skaff, 152 Wis. 2d 48, both the author of the PSI and the author’s spouse are probation agents with joint re- 447 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1989). sponsibility for supervision, there is no inherent conflict of interest. State v. Thex- A defendant challenging a sentence on due process grounds based upon failure to ton, 2007 WI App 11, 298 Wis. 2d 263, 727 N.W.2d 560, 05-3109. receive a copy of the presentence investigation report is entitled to a hearing only The right to consultation with counsel before a presentence interview does not in- upon a showing that the court had a blanket policy of denial of access and that the clude a right to be apprised of all lines of questioning before the interview occurs. policy was specifically applied to the defendant, or that before sentencing the defen- State v. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, 298 Wis. 2d 263, 727 N.W.2d 560, 05-3109. dant personally sought access and was denied it. State v. Flores, 158 Wis. 2d 636, In a merit appeal, parties who are entitled “to have and keep a copy” of a presen- 462 N.W.2d 899 (Ct. App. 1990). tence investigation report (PSI) under sub. (4m) need not ask any court’s permission A public defender appointed as postconviction counsel is entitled to the presen- to reference the PSI in an appellate brief. Parties may reference information from tence investigation report under s. 967.06. Access may not be restricted under sub. the PSI that does not reveal confidential information and that is relevant to the ap- (4). State ex rel. Oliver v. Guolee, 179 Wis. 2d 376, 507 N.W.2d 145 (Ct. App. peal. State ex rel. SPD v. Court of Appeals, 2013 WI 31, 346 Wis. 2d 735, 828 1993). N.W.2d 847, 12-0544. Although sub. (2s) requires a presentence report to include juvenile adjudications Courts do not have either express or implied statutory authority to order the de- that are less than three years old, it does not prohibit the inclusion and consideration struction of presentence investigation reports. This section, the administrative code, of adjudications that are older. State v. Crowe, 189 Wis. 2d 72, 525 N.W.2d 291 (Ct. and Supreme Court Rules on record retention implicate principles of preservation App. 1994). and confidentiality, not destruction. State v. Melton, 2013 WI 65, 349 Wis. 2d 48, Sub. (5) does not provide a defendant with a means to obtain the defendant’s pre- 834 N.W.2d 345, 11-1770. sentence report. Access is provided by subs. (2) and (4). State ex rel. Hill v. Zim- Insuring the Accuracy of the Presentence Investigation Report in the Wisconsin merman, 196 Wis. 2d 419, 538 N.W.2d 608 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-1861. Correctional System. Bergman. 1986 WLR 613.

2023-24 Wisconsin Statutes updated through 2025 Wis. Act 137 and through all Supreme Court Orders and Controlled Sub- stances Board Orders filed before and in effect on May 13, 2026. Published and certified under s. 35.18. Changes effective after May 13, 2026, are designated by NOTES. (Published 5-13-26)