Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 973.195 (2026)
Sentence adjustment
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
973.195(1g)(1g) Definition. In this section, “applicable percentage” means 85 percent for a Class C to E felony and 75 percent for a Class F to I felony.
973.195(1r)(a)(a) Except as provided in s. 973.198, an inmate who is serving a sentence imposed under s. 973.01 for a crime other than a Class B felony may petition the sentencing court to adjust the sentence if the inmate has served at least the applicable percentage of the term of confinement in prison portion of the sentence. If an inmate is subject to more than one sentence imposed under this section, the sentences shall be treated individually for purposes of sentence adjustment under this subsection.
973.195(1r)(b)1.1. The inmate’s conduct, efforts at and progress in rehabilitation, or participation and progress in education, treatment, or other correctional programs since he or she was sentenced.
973.195(1r)(b)3.3. A change in law or procedure related to sentencing or revocation of extended supervision effective after the inmate was sentenced that would have resulted in a shorter term of confinement in prison or, if the inmate was returned to prison upon revocation of extended supervision, a shorter period of confinement in prison upon revocation, if the change had been applicable when the inmate was sentenced.
973.195(1r)(b)4.4. The inmate is subject to a sentence of confinement in another state or the inmate is in the United States illegally and may be deported.
973.195(1r)(c)(c) Upon receipt of a petition filed under par. (a), the sentencing court may deny the petition or hold the petition for further consideration. If the court holds the petition for further consideration, the court shall notify the district attorney of the inmate’s petition. If the district attorney objects to adjustment of the inmate’s sentence within 45 days of receiving notification under this paragraph, the court shall deny the inmate’s petition.
973.195(1r)(d)(d) If the sentence for which the inmate seeks adjustment is for an offense under s. 940.225 (2) or (3), 948.02 (2), 948.08, or 948.085, and the district attorney does not object to the petition within 10 days of receiving notice under par. (c), the district attorney shall notify the victim, as defined under s. 950.02 (4), of the inmate’s petition. The notice to the victim shall include information on the sentence adjustment petition process under this subsection, including information on how to object to the inmate’s petition. If the victim objects to adjustment of the inmate’s sentence within 45 days of the date on which the district attorney received notice under par. (c), the court shall deny the inmate’s petition.
973.195(1r)(e)(e) Notwithstanding the confidentiality of victim address information obtained under s. 302.113 (9g) (g) 3., a district attorney who is required to send notice to a victim under par. (d) may obtain from the clerk of the circuit court victim address information that the victim provided to the clerk under s. 302.113 (9g) (g) 3.
973.195(1r)(f)(f) If the sentencing court receives no objection to sentence adjustment from the district attorney under par. (c) or the victim under par. (d) and the court determines that sentence adjustment is in the public interest, the court may adjust the inmate’s sentence as provided under par. (g). The court shall include in the record written reasons for any sentence adjustment granted under this subsection.
973.195(1r)(g)(g) Except as provided under par. (h), the only sentence adjustments that a court may make under this subsection are as follows:
973.195(1r)(g)1.1. If the inmate is serving the term of confinement in prison portion of the sentence, a reduction in the term of confinement in prison by the amount of time remaining in the term of confinement in prison portion of the sentence, less up to 30 days, and a corresponding increase in the term of extended supervision.
973.195(1r)(g)2.2. If the inmate is confined in prison upon revocation of extended supervision, a reduction in the amount of time remaining in the period of confinement in prison imposed upon revocation, less up to 30 days, and a corresponding increase in the term of extended supervision.
973.195(1r)(h)1.1. If the court adjusts a sentence under par. (g) on the basis of a change in law or procedure as provided under par. (b) 3. and the total sentence length of the adjusted sentence is greater than the maximum sentence length that the offender could have received if the change in law or procedure had been applicable when the inmate was originally sentenced, the court may reduce the length of the term of extended supervision so that the total sentence length does not exceed the maximum sentence length that the offender could have received if the change in law or procedure had been applicable when the inmate was originally sentenced.
973.195(1r)(h)2.2. If the court adjusts a sentence under par. (g) on the basis of a change in law or procedure as provided under par. (b) 3. and the adjusted term of extended supervision is greater than the maximum term of extended supervision that the offender could have received if the change in law or procedure had been applicable when the inmate was originally sentenced, the court may reduce the length of the term of extended supervision so that the term of extended supervision does not exceed the maximum term of extended supervision that the offender could have received if the change in law or procedure had been applicable when the inmate was originally sentenced.
973.195(1r)(i)(i) An inmate may submit only one petition under this subsection for each sentence imposed under s. 973.01.
973.195 HistoryHistory: 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 253, 277; 2007 a. 97; 2009 a. 28; 2011 a. 38, 258; 2013 a. 168.
973.195 AnnotationThis section is a remedy that provides the procedure for judicial review of a sentence when the law relating to sentencing changes and is an adequate remedy to address the circumstances resulting from the reduction in penalties under the 2001 Wis. Act 109 revisions to the sentencing laws. State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, 279 Wis. 2d 712, 694 N.W.2d 933, 03-1463.
973.195 AnnotationSub. (1g) sets forth the “applicable percentage” of the term of initial confinement a person must serve before being eligible for sentence adjustment utilizing the felony classification scheme adopted in 2001 Wis. Act 109 and does not indicate how to calculate the “applicable percentage” for a sentence under the scheme adopted in 1997 Wis. Act 283. This problem is remedied by applying the Act 109 felony classification under s. 939.50 to persons sentenced under Act 283 for the limited purpose of determining the applicable percentage of a term of initial confinement in a petition for sentence adjustment. State v. Tucker, 2005 WI 46, 279 Wis. 2d 697, 694 N.W.2d 926, 03-1276.
973.195 AnnotationTwo concurring/dissenting opinions joined in by the same four justices, read together, hold that “shall” in the last sentence of sub. (1r) (c) is directory, thereby giving a circuit court discretion to accept or reject an objection from a district attorney on a petition for sentence adjustment under this section. The circuit court must exercise its discretion by weighing the appropriate factors under sub. (1r) (b) 1. when the court reaches its decision on sentence adjustment. State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, 281 Wis. 2d 484, 697 N.W.2d 769, 03-1533.
973.195 AnnotationSub. (1r) clearly states that if an inmate is subject to more than one sentence imposed under this section, the sentences shall be treated individually for purposes of sentence adjustment under sub. (1r). There is no alternative interpretation; multiple sentences are to be considered separately for the purpose of sentence adjustment. State v. Polar, 2014 WI App 15, 352 Wis. 2d 452, 842 N.W.2d 531, 13-1433.
973.195 AnnotationA person serving an enhanced misdemeanor prison term imposed when a defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor and is subject to penalty enhancement, such that a bifurcated sentence under s. 973.01 (1) is a possibility and the court actually chooses to impose prison time, is eligible for sentence adjustment under this section. Because the “applicable percentage” for Class I felonies is 75 percent, and because 75 percent is the lowest “applicable percentage” specified by the legislature, the most reasonable assumption is that the legislature intended that 75 percent applies to enhanced misdemeanants. State v. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92, 366 Wis. 2d 147, 873 N.W.2d 82, 14-0982.
973.195 AnnotationThe term of initial confinement of an inmate sentenced under s. 346.65 (2) (am) 6. may not be reduced below the mandatory minimum of three years. State v. Joski, 2025 WI App 67, 418 Wis. 2d 600, 28 N.W.3d 206, 23-1371.
973.195 AnnotationThe Pendulum Swings: No More Early Release. Brennan. Wis. Law. Sept. 2011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005).
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
State v. Tucker, 2005 WI 46 (Wis. 2005). “Act 109 (TIS-II), constitute new factors in regard to a sentence modification motion, where the original sentences were imposed in accord with 1997 Wis.”
State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42 (Wis. 2004). “Gallion's argument is further undermined by Wis. Stat. § 973.195 , the statutory provision specifically enacted to address sentencing disparity between TIS-I and TIS-II.”
State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45 (Wis. 2005). “We agree with the State of Wisconsin (State) that TIS-II's reduced maximum confinement for the same TIS-I felony does not constitute a new factor when a defendant moves for the modification of a sentence imposed under TIS-I.”
State v. Torres, 2003 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Act 109, the law created Wis. Stat. § 973.195 , which provides the procedure for judicial review of a sentence when the law relating to sentencing changes.”
State v. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “195 reflects the legislature's intent to create a separate and specific statutory procedure for requesting a sentence reduction that should be used in place of [a motion for sentence modification] whenever "a change in law or procedure related to sentencing.. . effective after…”
State v. Taylor, 2006 WI 22 (Wis. 2006). “…Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶ 28 , 270 Wis. 2d 535 , 678 N.W.2d 197 . [2] Early release options are restricted. See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 973.195 (2003-04).”
State v. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “2 Under Wis. Stat. § 973.195 , effective February 1, 2003, a prisoner may, after he or she serves either eighty-five percent or seventy-five percent of his or her sentence, petition the circuit court for an adjustment of that sentence.”
State v. Sutton, 2006 WI App 118 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “For example, initial terms of confinement may be modified by a successful motion for modification under Wis. Stat. § 973.195 (lr); participation in the challenge incarceration program under Wis.”
State v. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “The question here is whether sentence adjustment under Wis. Stat. § 973.195 is available to reduce confinement time for persons serving an enhanced misdemeanor prison term.”
State v. Polar, 2014 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “After he had served eight and one-half years of the total ten-year sentence, Polar moved to adjust his sentences; however, the trial court denied his motion, concluding that, pursuant to *454 Wis. Stat. § 973.195 (2011-12), 1 Polar filed his motion with respect to the seven-year…”
State v. Angela R. Joski (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “2023AP1371-CR § 973.195 (2023-24)1, which statute offers an opportunity for early release from confinement.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(1g) — 2 cases
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
State v. Tucker, 2005 WI 46 (Wis. 2005). “Act 109 (TIS-II), constitute new factors in regard to a sentence modification motion, where the original sentences were imposed in accord with 1997 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(1r)(a) — 1 case
State v. Angela R. Joski (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “2023AP1371-CR § 973.195 (2023-24)1, which statute offers an opportunity for early release from confinement.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(1r)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
State v. Angela R. Joski (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “2023AP1371-CR § 973.195 (2023-24)1, which statute offers an opportunity for early release from confinement.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(1r)(c) — 1 case
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(1r)(f) — 1 case
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(1r)(g) — 2 cases
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
State v. Angela R. Joski (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “2023AP1371-CR § 973.195 (2023-24)1, which statute offers an opportunity for early release from confinement.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(1r)(i) — 1 case
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(b) — 1 case
State v. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “195 reflects the legislature's intent to create a separate and specific statutory procedure for requesting a sentence reduction that should be used in place of [a motion for sentence modification] whenever "a change in law or procedure related to sentencing.. . effective after…”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(lg) — 4 cases
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
State v. Tucker, 2005 WI 46 (Wis. 2005). “Act 109 (TIS-II), constitute new factors in regard to a sentence modification motion, where the original sentences were imposed in accord with 1997 Wis.”
State v. Polar, 2014 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “After he had served eight and one-half years of the total ten-year sentence, Polar moved to adjust his sentences; however, the trial court denied his motion, concluding that, pursuant to *454 Wis. Stat. § 973.195 (2011-12), 1 Polar filed his motion with respect to the seven-year…”
State v. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “The question here is whether sentence adjustment under Wis. Stat. § 973.195 is available to reduce confinement time for persons serving an enhanced misdemeanor prison term.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(lr) — 3 cases
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
State v. Polar, 2014 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “After he had served eight and one-half years of the total ten-year sentence, Polar moved to adjust his sentences; however, the trial court denied his motion, concluding that, pursuant to *454 Wis. Stat. § 973.195 (2011-12), 1 Polar filed his motion with respect to the seven-year…”
State v. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “The question here is whether sentence adjustment under Wis. Stat. § 973.195 is available to reduce confinement time for persons serving an enhanced misdemeanor prison term.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(lr)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Polar, 2014 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “After he had served eight and one-half years of the total ten-year sentence, Polar moved to adjust his sentences; however, the trial court denied his motion, concluding that, pursuant to *454 Wis. Stat. § 973.195 (2011-12), 1 Polar filed his motion with respect to the seven-year…”
State v. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “The question here is whether sentence adjustment under Wis. Stat. § 973.195 is available to reduce confinement time for persons serving an enhanced misdemeanor prison term.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(lr)(b) — 1 case
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(lr)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
State v. Torres, 2003 WI App 199 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Act 109, the law created Wis. Stat. § 973.195 , which provides the procedure for judicial review of a sentence when the law relating to sentencing changes.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(lr)(f) — 1 case
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(lr)(g) — 1 case
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
— Wis. Stat. § 973.195(lr)(i) — 1 case
State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71 (Wis. 2005). “Section 973.195 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it does not intrude upon the judiciary's inherent power to modify sentences.”
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.