Notes of Decisions
Cited in
162
cases (
56 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
State v. Jackson, 2004 WI 29 (Wis. 2004).
State v. Jackson, 2004 WI 29 (Wis. 2004).
· cites it 386× “However, we also determine that the court of appeals' reliance on Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(d), the statute specifying that the *117 extended supervision term imposed by the court be at least 25% of the term of confinement imposed, was misplaced.”
State v. Cole, 2003 WI 59 (Wis. 2003).
· cites it 83× “Specifically, the defendant's sentence was subject to Wis. Stat. § 973.01 , a statute enacted through TIS-I, requiring that the sentence be bifurcated such that a portion of the sentence include a term of confinement and a portion of the sentence include a term of extended…”
State v. Timothy L. Finley, Jr., 2016 WI 63 (Wis. 2016).
· cites it 22× “See Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (1), (2). "Imprisonment;" "Confinement in Prison;" "Extended Supervision.”
State v. Gerald D. Taylor, 2013 WI 34 (Wis. 2013).
· cites it 20× “15 Indeed it is often difficult to follow the majority opinion's discussion of what the defendant knew as the opinion continually shifts, not always precisely or correctly, between referring to "imprisonment" (which encompasses confinement and extended supervision) and "prison"…”
State v. Volk, 2002 WI App 274 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 24× “We hold that Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(c) does not authorize a sentencing court to impose any portion of a penalty enhancer as extended supervision.”
State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42 (Wis. 2004).
· cites it 8× “Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01 (2)(ad), (ag), (ak), and (b) [11] These factors include: "(1) Past record of criminal offenses; (2) history of undesirable behavior pattern; (3) the defendant's personality, character and social traits; (4) result of presentence investigation; (5) vicious or…”
State v. Larson, 2003 WI App 235 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 35× “Larson argues that Wisconsin's Truth In Sentencing law, Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2001-02), 1 does not authorize a circuit court to order periodic jail confinement as a condition of extended supervision.”
State v. Lamont L. Travis, 2013 WI 38 (Wis. 2013).
· cites it 12× “50 (3)(b), with a bifurcated sentence consisting of a maximum period of initial confinement of forty years, Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(b), and a maximum period of extended supervision of twenty years, Wis.”
State Ex Rel. Singh v. Kemper, 2016 WI 67 (Wis. 2016).
· cites it 14× “" Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (1). 22 The record is not clear as to why the Waukesha sentence was amended, but it is clear that Singh is in a better position now because he no longer has any extended supervision in that case, he could not be returned to prison on that sentence, and he…”
State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45 (Wis. 2005).
· cites it 18× “Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01 (1) and (2). The use of indeterminate sentencing, prior to TIS-I, guaranteed that a convicted defendant would serve for a stated number of years, but that the parole board would determine how much of that sentence was served in prison.”
State v. Crochiere, 2004 WI 78 (Wis. 2004).
· cites it 10× “Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (4) and (6) (2001-02); 4 see TIS Comes to Wisconsin, supra, at 14.”
State v. Galvan, 2007 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 24× “The court denied the motion, ruling that the surcharge was imposed as a condition of Galvan's extended supervision pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (5) and (8), which do not expressly require an ability-to-pay determination.”
State v. Rowan, 2012 WI 60 (Wis. 2012).
· cites it 9× “The supervision condition imposed in this case does not violate Rowan's constitutional rights because the circuit court made an individualized determination, pursuant to the circuit court's authority under Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (5), that the condition was necessary based on the…”
State v. Ninham, 2011 WI 33 (Wis. 2011).
· cites it 7× “Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (1), (2)(b) (1997-98); see also Brennan, TIS.”
State v. Lasanske, 2014 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 24× “Bifurcation and Enhancement of Felony Sentences Under Wis. Stat. § 973.01 ¶ 5. With very few exceptions, 5 whenever a court sentences a person to "imprisonment in the Wisconsin state prisons" for a felony or a misdemeanor, the court must impose a bifurcated sentence — which is…”
State v. Steele, 2001 WI App 160 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 11× “Steele filed a motion for postconviction relief; he argued that the finding of ineligibility for the challenge incarceration program constituted error by the trial court. The trial court denied this postconviction motion on April 6, 2000.”
State v. Christopher W. Yakich, 2022 WI 8 (Wis. 2022).
· cites it 5× “49 (1)(b); Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(b)8. Had Yakich not been found NGI, he could have received a sentence of at least nine years of confinement.”
State v. Tucker, 2005 WI 46 (Wis. 2005).
· cites it 12× “See Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (1999-2000). Thus, subsection (1r) of the sentence adjustment statute supports a conclusion that it applies to TIS-I offenders.”
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005).
· cites it 5× “Furthermore, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§973.01 (4) and (6) (1999-2000), TIS-I established that "those serving a bifurcated sentence were not eligible for parole," and eliminated the possibility for a reduction in confinement time for good behavior.”
State v. Joseph B. Reinwand, 924 N.W.2d 184 (Wis. 2019).
· cites it 4× “Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01 (1) & (6), 973.014. However, a person sentenced to life in prison after December 31, 1999 may, in the discretion of the sentencing court, become eligible for release to extended supervision after serving a minimum of 20 years.”
Deandre Beason v. Matthew Marske, 926 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01 (1) - (2). And the term of confinement allowed for Class F and G felonies is lower than the total maximum sentence-seven years and six months for a Class F felony and five years for a Class G felony.”
State v. Clayton W. Williams, 2014 WI 64 (Wis. 2014).
· cites it 6× “does not require a court to impose a 2 "A bifurcated sentence is a sentence that consists of a term of confinement in prison followed by a term of extended supervision under s.”
State v. Hall, 2002 WI App 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “For the first seven counts, release eligibility is computed as 25% of the sentence imposed, see WIS.”
State v. Lehman, 2004 WI App 59 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 30× “The court, as required under Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (3m), also found that Lehman was eligible for the CIE but imposed a four-year waiting period on Lehman's eligibility.”
State v. Swiams, 2004 WI App 217 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 5× “48, and was sentenced on November 20, 2001, to a bifurcated term of fifteen months in the Wisconsin State Prisons and twenty-seven months of extended supervision, see Wis. Stat. § 973.01 . When sentenced, he formally indicated that he did not intend to seek postconviction relief.”
State v. William F. Bokenyi, 2014 WI 61 (Wis. 2014).
· cites it 12× “Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (8). 25 No. 2012AP2557-CR the plea agreement, and seemingly consistent with the victim's wishes.”
State v. Hatem M. Shata, 2015 WI 74 (Wis. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(b)7. ¶13 After confirming that the State accurately described the plea agreement, Attorney Toran told the court that he had informed Shata "that there's a potential he could be deported.”
State v. Peter J. King, Jr., 2020 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “§ 973.01(5).2 The circuit court granted an exception to those conditions in that King was permitted “[i]nternet access at a job center” or at a “place of business [at] which [King] wishes to work” to apply for employment, but only with permission of his DOC agent.”
State v. Harris, 2011 WI App 130 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 9× “Thus, Harris's sentences fall under *225 the purview of Wis. Stat. § 973.01 and Harris is consequently prohibited from earning sentence credit for his convictions because they are violent offenses.”
State v. Champion, 2002 WI App 267 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “" Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (4) and (6). 5 With limited exceptions, § 973.”
State v. Kleven, 2005 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 9× “See Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(b)4. Finally, Wis.”
State v. Silva, 2003 WI App 191 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “§ 973.01. Thus, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND.”
State v. Speer, 501 N.W.2d 429 (Wis. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Section 973.01(1)(c), Stats. Thus, the sentencing guidelines serve several important functions .”
State v. Stewart, 2006 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “From this, the trial court reasoned that the maximum term of probation for a felony bail jumping conviction, a Class H felony, is six years: the maximum term of confinement is three years and the maximum term of extended supervision is three years.”
State v. Mason, 2004 WI App 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “This is true because, under those statutes, armed robbery is a Class B felony and the specified maximum initial confinement for a Class B felony is 40 years. Application of the attempt statute, Wis.”
State v. Andrew M. Obriecht, 2015 WI 66 (Wis. 2015).
· cites it 6× “2d 769 (stating Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (1) was a main feature of TIS); § 973.”
State v. Miller, 2005 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Miller maintains that the condition of his extended supervision ordering him to fulfill his child support obligations from the 1991 paternity action was not authorized under Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (5), which allows courts imposing a bifurcated sentence to "impose conditions upon…”
State v. Hall, 2007 WI App 168 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 7× “3 Thus, by imposing what he considers a bifurcated sentence at his recon-finement hearing, Hall argues that the reconfinement court is obligated by § 973.01(3g) and (3m) to decide whether a defendant is eligible for CIP or ERE Concluding, Hall proffers: "Nothing in the statute…”
State v. Harris, 2008 WI App 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 33× “The original sentencing court in Hall apparently did not consider whether Hall was eligible for the Earned Release Program, authorized by § 973.01(3g). Hall, 2007 WI App 168, ¶ 2 , 304 Wis.”
David Minnick v. Dan Winkleski, 15 F.4th 460 (7th Cir. 2021).
“See Wis. Stat. 973.01(2); Thomas J. Hammer, The Long and Arduous Journey to Truth‐in‐ Sentencing in Wisconsin, 15 FED.”
State v. Johnson, 730 N.W.2d 661 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “As noted in ¶ 6 above, § 973.01(3g) was also created in 2003 Wis.”
State v. Schladweiler, 2009 WI App 177 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “§ 973.01(8), including an explanation of the impact of a CIP eligibility determination on the length of the sentence, id.”
State v. Lichty, 2012 WI App 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “, and the maximum term of extended supervision is five years, § 973.01(d)4. ¶ 13. By the time of the sentencing hearing in January, the mistake had been discovered, and the State therefore adjusted its recommendation to comply with the law by reducing the recommended extended…”
State v. Smet, 519 N.W.2d 697 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2×
State v. Koenig, 2003 WI App 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
“Koenig on notice that if she begins dating, seeing someone socially of the opposite sex, she must immediately introduce that person to her supervising agent." ¶ 6. Koenig appeals.”
State v. Pote, 2003 WI App 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2×
State v. Lynch, 2006 WI App 231 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
“§ 973.01(3g) provides: (3g) EaRned release program eligibility.”
State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, 2023 WI 49 (Wis. 2023).
· cites it 6× “" § 973.01(7). The structure here also places the power to sentence with the court, but supervision, custody, and control thereafter belongs to DOC.”
State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, 2023 WI 49 (Wis. 2023).
· cites it 6× “" § 973.01(7). The structure here also places the power to sentence with the court, but supervision, custody, and control thereafter belongs to DOC.”
State v. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 32× “See § 973.01(4). ¶ 30. Moreover, while the differences we discuss in ¶ 26 show why it is reasonable to authorize sentence adjustment for enhanced misdemeanants sentenced to prison, but not misdemeanants sentenced to jail, the similarities we describe in ¶ 29 show why it makes…”
State v. Tory J. Agnew (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 11× “§ 973.01(2)(a) and (2)(c)1. Any penalty enhancer is limited to extending the period of initial confinement; the penalty enhancer cannot be divided between initial confinement and extended supervision.”
Christopher P. Kawleski v. State (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 9× “See § 973.01(2)(a), (8)(a) (1999- 2000). “Confinement” refers to the period of time that is imposed by the circuit court as the initial confinement part of the bifurcated sentence and which is served by the defendant in prison following imposition of the defendant’s sentence,…”
State v. James A. Culver (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 8× “§ 973.01(2), maximum terms of extended supervision are determined differently for unclassified and classified felonies.”
State v. Les Paul Henderson (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “§ 973.01(3m), which addresses eligibility for the challenge incarceration program, provides: “When imposing a bifurcated sentence under this section on a person convicted of a crime other than a crime specified in [WIS.”
State v. Bennie L. Jones (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
“§§ 973.01(2)(b)(1); 939.63(1)(b). Turning to the record, we find no obvious basis for the circuit court to reasonably conclude that the sentence was unduly harsh or excessive.”
State v. Ryan B. S. Tate, Jr. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
“The successful completion of the program allows the conversion of the defendant’s remaining initial confinement time to extended supervision time.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(1) — 17 cases
State v. Cole, 2003 WI 59 (Wis. 2003).
“Specifically, the defendant's sentence was subject to Wis. Stat. § 973.01 , a statute enacted through TIS-I, requiring that the sentence be bifurcated such that a portion of the sentence include a term of confinement and a portion of the sentence include a term of extended…”
State v. Crochiere, 2004 WI 78 (Wis. 2004).
“Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (4) and (6) (2001-02); 4 see TIS Comes to Wisconsin, supra, at 14.”
State v. Jackson, 2004 WI 29 (Wis. 2004).
“However, we also determine that the court of appeals' reliance on Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(d), the statute specifying that the *117 extended supervision term imposed by the court be at least 25% of the term of confinement imposed, was misplaced.”
State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45 (Wis. 2005).
“Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01 (1) and (2). The use of indeterminate sentencing, prior to TIS-I, guaranteed that a convicted defendant would serve for a stated number of years, but that the parole board would determine how much of that sentence was served in prison.”
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005).
“Furthermore, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§973.01 (4) and (6) (1999-2000), TIS-I established that "those serving a bifurcated sentence were not eligible for parole," and eliminated the possibility for a reduction in confinement time for good behavior.”
State v. Swiams, 2004 WI App 217 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
“48, and was sentenced on November 20, 2001, to a bifurcated term of fifteen months in the Wisconsin State Prisons and twenty-seven months of extended supervision, see Wis. Stat. § 973.01 . When sentenced, he formally indicated that he did not intend to seek postconviction relief.”
State v. Harris, 2008 WI App 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“The original sentencing court in Hall apparently did not consider whether Hall was eligible for the Earned Release Program, authorized by § 973.01(3g). Hall, 2007 WI App 168, ¶ 2 , 304 Wis.”
Christopher P. Kawleski v. State (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
“See § 973.01(2)(a), (8)(a) (1999- 2000). “Confinement” refers to the period of time that is imposed by the circuit court as the initial confinement part of the bifurcated sentence and which is served by the defendant in prison following imposition of the defendant’s sentence,…”
State v. James A. Culver (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
“§ 973.01(2), maximum terms of extended supervision are determined differently for unclassified and classified felonies.”
State v. Tory J. Agnew (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
“§ 973.01(2)(a) and (2)(c)1. Any penalty enhancer is limited to extending the period of initial confinement; the penalty enhancer cannot be divided between initial confinement and extended supervision.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Speer, 501 N.W.2d 429 (Wis. 1993).
“Section 973.01(1)(c), Stats. Thus, the sentencing guidelines serve several important functions .”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2) — 15 cases
State v. Larson, 2003 WI App 235 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
“Larson argues that Wisconsin's Truth In Sentencing law, Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2001-02), 1 does not authorize a circuit court to order periodic jail confinement as a condition of extended supervision.”
David Minnick v. Dan Winkleski, 15 F.4th 460 (7th Cir. 2021).
“See Wis. Stat. 973.01(2); Thomas J. Hammer, The Long and Arduous Journey to Truth‐in‐ Sentencing in Wisconsin, 15 FED.”
State v. Jackson, 2004 WI 29 (Wis. 2004).
“However, we also determine that the court of appeals' reliance on Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(d), the statute specifying that the *117 extended supervision term imposed by the court be at least 25% of the term of confinement imposed, was misplaced.”
State v. Galvan, 2007 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
“The court denied the motion, ruling that the surcharge was imposed as a condition of Galvan's extended supervision pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (5) and (8), which do not expressly require an ability-to-pay determination.”
State v. James A. Culver (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
“§ 973.01(2), maximum terms of extended supervision are determined differently for unclassified and classified felonies.”
State v. Tory J. Agnew (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
“§ 973.01(2)(a) and (2)(c)1. Any penalty enhancer is limited to extending the period of initial confinement; the penalty enhancer cannot be divided between initial confinement and extended supervision.”
Christopher P. Kawleski v. State (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
“See § 973.01(2)(a), (8)(a) (1999- 2000). “Confinement” refers to the period of time that is imposed by the circuit court as the initial confinement part of the bifurcated sentence and which is served by the defendant in prison following imposition of the defendant’s sentence,…”
State v. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015).
“See § 973.01(4). ¶ 30. Moreover, while the differences we discuss in ¶ 26 show why it is reasonable to authorize sentence adjustment for enhanced misdemeanants sentenced to prison, but not misdemeanants sentenced to jail, the similarities we describe in ¶ 29 show why it makes…”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Tory J. Agnew (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
“§ 973.01(2)(a) and (2)(c)1. Any penalty enhancer is limited to extending the period of initial confinement; the penalty enhancer cannot be divided between initial confinement and extended supervision.”
Christopher P. Kawleski v. State (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
“See § 973.01(2)(a), (8)(a) (1999- 2000). “Confinement” refers to the period of time that is imposed by the circuit court as the initial confinement part of the bifurcated sentence and which is served by the defendant in prison following imposition of the defendant’s sentence,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(b) — 26 cases
State v. Jackson, 2004 WI 29 (Wis. 2004).
“However, we also determine that the court of appeals' reliance on Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(d), the statute specifying that the *117 extended supervision term imposed by the court be at least 25% of the term of confinement imposed, was misplaced.”
State v. Cole, 2003 WI 59 (Wis. 2003).
“Specifically, the defendant's sentence was subject to Wis. Stat. § 973.01 , a statute enacted through TIS-I, requiring that the sentence be bifurcated such that a portion of the sentence include a term of confinement and a portion of the sentence include a term of extended…”
State v. Clayton W. Williams, 2014 WI 64 (Wis. 2014).
“does not require a court to impose a 2 "A bifurcated sentence is a sentence that consists of a term of confinement in prison followed by a term of extended supervision under s.”
State v. Crochiere, 2004 WI 78 (Wis. 2004).
“Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (4) and (6) (2001-02); 4 see TIS Comes to Wisconsin, supra, at 14.”
State v. Mason, 2004 WI App 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
“This is true because, under those statutes, armed robbery is a Class B felony and the specified maximum initial confinement for a Class B felony is 40 years. Application of the attempt statute, Wis.”
State v. Kleven, 2005 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005).
“See Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(b)4. Finally, Wis.”
State v. Lasanske, 2014 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014).
“Bifurcation and Enhancement of Felony Sentences Under Wis. Stat. § 973.01 ¶ 5. With very few exceptions, 5 whenever a court sentences a person to "imprisonment in the Wisconsin state prisons" for a felony or a misdemeanor, the court must impose a bifurcated sentence — which is…”
State v. Lichty, 2012 WI App 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012).
“, and the maximum term of extended supervision is five years, § 973.01(d)4. ¶ 13. By the time of the sentencing hearing in January, the mistake had been discovered, and the State therefore adjusted its recommendation to comply with the law by reducing the recommended extended…”
State v. Tory J. Agnew (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
“§ 973.01(2)(a) and (2)(c)1. Any penalty enhancer is limited to extending the period of initial confinement; the penalty enhancer cannot be divided between initial confinement and extended supervision.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(b)(1) — 1 case
State v. Bennie L. Jones (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
“§§ 973.01(2)(b)(1); 939.63(1)(b). Turning to the record, we find no obvious basis for the circuit court to reasonably conclude that the sentence was unduly harsh or excessive.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(c) — 9 cases
State v. Jackson, 2004 WI 29 (Wis. 2004).
“However, we also determine that the court of appeals' reliance on Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(d), the statute specifying that the *117 extended supervision term imposed by the court be at least 25% of the term of confinement imposed, was misplaced.”
State v. Cole, 2003 WI 59 (Wis. 2003).
“Specifically, the defendant's sentence was subject to Wis. Stat. § 973.01 , a statute enacted through TIS-I, requiring that the sentence be bifurcated such that a portion of the sentence include a term of confinement and a portion of the sentence include a term of extended…”
State v. Volk, 2002 WI App 274 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
“We hold that Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(c) does not authorize a sentencing court to impose any portion of a penalty enhancer as extended supervision.”
State v. Lasanske, 2014 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014).
“Bifurcation and Enhancement of Felony Sentences Under Wis. Stat. § 973.01 ¶ 5. With very few exceptions, 5 whenever a court sentences a person to "imprisonment in the Wisconsin state prisons" for a felony or a misdemeanor, the court must impose a bifurcated sentence — which is…”
State v. Tory J. Agnew (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
“§ 973.01(2)(a) and (2)(c)1. Any penalty enhancer is limited to extending the period of initial confinement; the penalty enhancer cannot be divided between initial confinement and extended supervision.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(d) — 14 cases
State v. Jackson, 2004 WI 29 (Wis. 2004).
“However, we also determine that the court of appeals' reliance on Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(d), the statute specifying that the *117 extended supervision term imposed by the court be at least 25% of the term of confinement imposed, was misplaced.”
State v. Timothy L. Finley, Jr., 2016 WI 63 (Wis. 2016).
“See Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (1), (2). "Imprisonment;" "Confinement in Prison;" "Extended Supervision.”
State v. Cole, 2003 WI 59 (Wis. 2003).
“Specifically, the defendant's sentence was subject to Wis. Stat. § 973.01 , a statute enacted through TIS-I, requiring that the sentence be bifurcated such that a portion of the sentence include a term of confinement and a portion of the sentence include a term of extended…”
State v. Hall, 2002 WI App 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
“For the first seven counts, release eligibility is computed as 25% of the sentence imposed, see WIS.”
State v. Lasanske, 2014 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014).
“Bifurcation and Enhancement of Felony Sentences Under Wis. Stat. § 973.01 ¶ 5. With very few exceptions, 5 whenever a court sentences a person to "imprisonment in the Wisconsin state prisons" for a felony or a misdemeanor, the court must impose a bifurcated sentence — which is…”
State v. James A. Culver (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
“§ 973.01(2), maximum terms of extended supervision are determined differently for unclassified and classified felonies.”
State v. Tory J. Agnew (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
“§ 973.01(2)(a) and (2)(c)1. Any penalty enhancer is limited to extending the period of initial confinement; the penalty enhancer cannot be divided between initial confinement and extended supervision.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(3d)(b) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Singh v. Kemper, 2016 WI 67 (Wis. 2016).
“" Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (1). 22 The record is not clear as to why the Waukesha sentence was amended, but it is clear that Singh is in a better position now because he no longer has any extended supervision in that case, he could not be returned to prison on that sentence, and he…”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(3g) — 11 cases
State v. Timothy L. Finley, Jr., 2016 WI 63 (Wis. 2016).
“See Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (1), (2). "Imprisonment;" "Confinement in Prison;" "Extended Supervision.”
State v. Lynch, 2006 WI App 231 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
“§ 973.01(3g) provides: (3g) EaRned release program eligibility.”
State v. Johnson, 730 N.W.2d 661 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
“As noted in ¶ 6 above, § 973.01(3g) was also created in 2003 Wis.”
State v. Hall, 2007 WI App 168 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
“3 Thus, by imposing what he considers a bifurcated sentence at his recon-finement hearing, Hall argues that the reconfinement court is obligated by § 973.01(3g) and (3m) to decide whether a defendant is eligible for CIP or ERE Concluding, Hall proffers: "Nothing in the statute…”
State v. Harris, 2008 WI App 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“The original sentencing court in Hall apparently did not consider whether Hall was eligible for the Earned Release Program, authorized by § 973.01(3g). Hall, 2007 WI App 168, ¶ 2 , 304 Wis.”
State v. Les Paul Henderson (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
“§ 973.01(3m), which addresses eligibility for the challenge incarceration program, provides: “When imposing a bifurcated sentence under this section on a person convicted of a crime other than a crime specified in [WIS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(3m) — 6 cases
State v. Steele, 2001 WI App 160 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
“Steele filed a motion for postconviction relief; he argued that the finding of ineligibility for the challenge incarceration program constituted error by the trial court. The trial court denied this postconviction motion on April 6, 2000.”
State v. Lehman, 2004 WI App 59 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
“The court, as required under Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (3m), also found that Lehman was eligible for the CIE but imposed a four-year waiting period on Lehman's eligibility.”
State v. Harris, 2008 WI App 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“The original sentencing court in Hall apparently did not consider whether Hall was eligible for the Earned Release Program, authorized by § 973.01(3g). Hall, 2007 WI App 168, ¶ 2 , 304 Wis.”
State v. Les Paul Henderson (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
“§ 973.01(3m), which addresses eligibility for the challenge incarceration program, provides: “When imposing a bifurcated sentence under this section on a person convicted of a crime other than a crime specified in [WIS.”
State v. Ryan B. S. Tate, Jr. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
“The successful completion of the program allows the conversion of the defendant’s remaining initial confinement time to extended supervision time.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(4) — 4 cases
State v. Crochiere, 2004 WI 78 (Wis. 2004).
“Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (4) and (6) (2001-02); 4 see TIS Comes to Wisconsin, supra, at 14.”
State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45 (Wis. 2005).
“Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01 (1) and (2). The use of indeterminate sentencing, prior to TIS-I, guaranteed that a convicted defendant would serve for a stated number of years, but that the parole board would determine how much of that sentence was served in prison.”
State v. Ninham, 2011 WI 33 (Wis. 2011).
“Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (1), (2)(b) (1997-98); see also Brennan, TIS.”
State v. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015).
“See § 973.01(4). ¶ 30. Moreover, while the differences we discuss in ¶ 26 show why it is reasonable to authorize sentence adjustment for enhanced misdemeanants sentenced to prison, but not misdemeanants sentenced to jail, the similarities we describe in ¶ 29 show why it makes…”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(5) — 14 cases
State v. Peter J. King, Jr., 2020 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
“§ 973.01(5).2 The circuit court granted an exception to those conditions in that King was permitted “[i]nternet access at a job center” or at a “place of business [at] which [King] wishes to work” to apply for employment, but only with permission of his DOC agent.”
State v. Larson, 2003 WI App 235 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
“Larson argues that Wisconsin's Truth In Sentencing law, Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2001-02), 1 does not authorize a circuit court to order periodic jail confinement as a condition of extended supervision.”
State v. Rowan, 2012 WI 60 (Wis. 2012).
“The supervision condition imposed in this case does not violate Rowan's constitutional rights because the circuit court made an individualized determination, pursuant to the circuit court's authority under Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (5), that the condition was necessary based on the…”
State v. Galvan, 2007 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
“The court denied the motion, ruling that the surcharge was imposed as a condition of Galvan's extended supervision pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (5) and (8), which do not expressly require an ability-to-pay determination.”
State v. Koenig, 2003 WI App 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
“Koenig on notice that if she begins dating, seeing someone socially of the opposite sex, she must immediately introduce that person to her supervising agent." ¶ 6. Koenig appeals.”
State v. Harris, 2008 WI App 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“The original sentencing court in Hall apparently did not consider whether Hall was eligible for the Earned Release Program, authorized by § 973.01(3g). Hall, 2007 WI App 168, ¶ 2 , 304 Wis.”
State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, 2023 WI 49 (Wis. 2023).
“" § 973.01(7). The structure here also places the power to sentence with the court, but supervision, custody, and control thereafter belongs to DOC.”
State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, 2023 WI 49 (Wis. 2023).
“" § 973.01(7). The structure here also places the power to sentence with the court, but supervision, custody, and control thereafter belongs to DOC.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(6) — 2 cases
State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45 (Wis. 2005).
“Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01 (1) and (2). The use of indeterminate sentencing, prior to TIS-I, guaranteed that a convicted defendant would serve for a stated number of years, but that the parole board would determine how much of that sentence was served in prison.”
State v. Crochiere, 2004 WI 78 (Wis. 2004).
“Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (4) and (6) (2001-02); 4 see TIS Comes to Wisconsin, supra, at 14.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(7) — 3 cases
State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, 2023 WI 49 (Wis. 2023).
“" § 973.01(7). The structure here also places the power to sentence with the court, but supervision, custody, and control thereafter belongs to DOC.”
State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, 2023 WI 49 (Wis. 2023).
“" § 973.01(7). The structure here also places the power to sentence with the court, but supervision, custody, and control thereafter belongs to DOC.”
Christopher P. Kawleski v. State (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
“See § 973.01(2)(a), (8)(a) (1999- 2000). “Confinement” refers to the period of time that is imposed by the circuit court as the initial confinement part of the bifurcated sentence and which is served by the defendant in prison following imposition of the defendant’s sentence,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(8) — 3 cases
State v. Silva, 2003 WI App 191 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
“§ 973.01. Thus, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND.”
State v. Schladweiler, 2009 WI App 177 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).
“§ 973.01(8), including an explanation of the impact of a CIP eligibility determination on the length of the sentence, id.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(8)(a) — 1 case
State v. Larson, 2003 WI App 235 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
“Larson argues that Wisconsin's Truth In Sentencing law, Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2001-02), 1 does not authorize a circuit court to order periodic jail confinement as a condition of extended supervision.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(d) — 1 case
State v. Lichty, 2012 WI App 126 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012).
“, and the maximum term of extended supervision is five years, § 973.01(d)4. ¶ 13. By the time of the sentencing hearing in January, the mistake had been discovered, and the State therefore adjusted its recommendation to comply with the law by reducing the recommended extended…”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.01(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Speer, 501 N.W.2d 429 (Wis. 1993).
“Section 973.01(1)(c), Stats. Thus, the sentencing guidelines serve several important functions .”
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.
