Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 973.13 (2026)
Excessive sentence, errors cured
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
973.13973.13 Excessive sentence, errors cured. In any case where the court imposes a maximum penalty in excess of that authorized by law, such excess shall be void and the sentence shall be valid only to the extent of the maximum term authorized by statute and shall stand commuted without further proceedings.
973.13 AnnotationThis section caps the length of a sentence reduced thereby, but it does not address other aspects or conditions of sentencing. The sentencing court may resentence the defendant if the new sentence is permitted by the law. State v. Holloway, 202 Wis. 2d 694, 551 N.W.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-2575.
973.13 AnnotationThis section commands that all sentences in excess of that authorized by law be declared void, including the repeater portion of a sentence. Prior postconviction motions that failed to challenge the validity of the sentence do not bar seeking relief from faulty repeater sentences. State v. Flowers, 221 Wis. 2d 20, 586 N.W.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-3682.
973.13 AnnotationTo allow the imposition of an unauthorized criminal penalty on the basis of waiver ignores the dictate of this section to alleviate all maximum penalties imposed in excess of that prescribed by law. State v. Hanson, 2001 WI 70, 244 Wis. 2d 405, 628 N.W.2d 759, 99-3142.
973.13 AnnotationFlowers, 221 Wis. 2d 20 (1998), holds that neither Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168 (1994), nor s. 974.06 (4) bar motions challenging the foundation for the convictions sustaining the habitual criminal status that are properly brought under this section. However, this section as it pertains to sentencing a repeat offender applies only when the state fails to prove the prior conviction necessary to establish the habitual criminal status or when the penalty given is longer than permitted by law for a repeater. State v. Mikulance, 2006 WI App 69, 291 Wis. 2d 494, 713 N.W.2d 160, 05-1120.
973.13 AnnotationThis section, which commutes a sentence imposed that exceeds the maximum statutory penalty, does not provide a remedy when the sentence initially imposed did not exceed the maximum statutory penalty. State v. Finley, 2016 WI 63, 370 Wis. 2d 402, 882 N.W.2d 761, 14-2488.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: State v. Timothy L. Finley, Jr., 2016 WI 63 (Wis. 2016).
State v. Timothy L. Finley, Jr., 2016 WI 63 (Wis. 2016). “As we explain further below, the use of the word "commuted" is apparently derived from Wis. Stat. § 973.13 , a statute that is not implicated in the instant case.”
State v. Gerald D. Taylor, 2013 WI 34 (Wis. 2013). “Further, Cross surmised that when a defendant is given a sentence in excess of that authorized by law, which "presumably would also involve an error in the understanding of the possible maximum penalty," the proper remedy is to commute the sentence under Wis. Stat. § 973.13 ,9…”
State v. Hanson, 2001 WI 70 (Wis. 2001). “[5] As such, his argument implicates the command of Wis. Stat. § 973.13 : Excessive sentence, errors cured.”
State v. Saunders, 2002 WI 107 (Wis. 2002). “Consequently, he argued, the repeater-enhanced portions of his sentence were in excess of that permitted by law and must be voided under Wis. Stat. § 973.13 . [10] ¶ 8. The circuit court issued an order, dated January 10, 2001, denying this request.”
State v. Volk, 2002 WI App 274 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “At first blush, this case appears to fall under Wis. Stat. § 973.13 , which states: In any case where the court imposes a maximum penalty in excess of that authorized by law, such excess shall be void and the sentence shall be valid only to the extent of the maximum term…”
State v. Flowers, 586 N.W.2d 175 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “Although Flowers did not explicitly name the statute upon which he relied, we construe his motion as having asked the trial court to grant him relief under § 973.13, Stats. He argued before the trial court, and argues again here, that the State failed to offer any proof of…”
State v. Edwards, 2002 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “2 We disagreed, concluding that *656 Escalona-Naranjo did not apply to motions brought under Wis. Stat. § 973.13 3 because that statute provides that sentences imposed in excess of that authorized by law are void "in any case," and therefore, could not be barred by Escalona.”
State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70 (Wis. 2010). “Fourth, we find further support for this position in Wis. Stat. § 973.13 . That statute provides: "In any case where the court imposes a maximum penalty in excess of that authorized by law, such excess shall be void and the sentence shall be valid only to the extent of the…”
State v. Holloway, 551 N.W.2d 841 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Pursuant to § 973.13, Stats., the trial court commuted the sentences to the maximum permitted for the underlying offenses because the repeater convictions had not been properly proven.”
State v. Finley, 2015 WI App 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “However, the court further concluded that, under Wis. Stat. § 973.13 and Taylor , the proper remedy in this case, "in the interest of justice," was to commute Finley's sentence "to the maximum represented to him at the time of [the plea hearing].”
State v. Spaeth, 556 N.W.2d 728 (Wis. 1996). “Finally, the defendant argues that because the record lacks competent proof of the four prior OAR convictions, that portion of his sentence imposed pursuant to § 343.44(2) penalty enhancements should be commuted.”
State v. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “On December 10, 2003, Tillman, again acting pro se, filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.13 on grounds of double jeopardy and multiplicity and because he was sentenced on the basis of inaccurate information.”
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.