State v. B.M., 2021AP501-FT, 12/14/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A court found “Brandon” delinquent and placed him on juvenile supervision. It said that if the State wanted electronic monitoring it could “schedule further proceedings and we’ll take that up.” But then the written order directed that he “shall participate in the electronic monitoring program as deemed appropriate by the assigned juvenile worker for any violation of supervision.”
Brandon first argued that a circuit court cannot delegate authority for the imposition of electronic monitoring to a juvenile justice worker. The court of appeals did not address that issue. Instead, it reversed based on the rule that where a court’s oral pronouncement and written order conflict, the oral pronouncement controls.
¶13 In State v. Perry, 136 Wis. 2d 92, 401 N.W.2d 748 (1987), our supreme court addressed the issue of conflict in the circuit court’s oral pronouncement with its written order. In Perry, the original oral pronouncement required that sentences for burglary and robbery be concurrent with each other and concurrent to the sentence imposed for injury by conduct regardless of life. Id. at 112. The written judgment, however, ordered that the sentence for the injury by conduct regardless of life count be consecutive to the other sentences. Id. Our supreme court concluded that the oral pronouncement was unambiguous. Id. at 114. The court concluded that the oral pronouncement controlled over the written judgment. Id..
¶14 After our review of the record on appeal, it is evident that there is a conflict between the circuit court’s oral pronouncement and its written dispositional order. Because the court’s oral pronouncement controls, we reverse the original dispositional order. On remand, we direct that the order be amended to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement
