State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230
For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn
Issue/Holding:
¶14 Montroy also argues a new PSI is necessary because the inaccurate information will continue to prejudice him in the future. He cites Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 328.27 (Nov. 2002) for examples of the various uses for a PSI beyond sentencing. However, Wis. Stat. § 973.08(2) requires that the transcript of Montroy’s sentencing hearing be part of his record. [6]Accordingly, Montroy’s record will include the court’s comments striking the improper references. Further, the uses the Department of Corrections might have for a PSI is not a basis to order a new PSI. See State v. Bush, 185 Wis. 2d 716, 723-24, 519 N.W.2d 645 (Ct. App. 1994). Any speculative future prejudice Montroy may suffer from the inaccuracies in his PSI does not compel us to overturn his sentence or order a new PSI.
[6] The relevant portion of Wis. Stat. § 973.08, entitled “Records accompanying prisoner,” provides:
(2) The transcript of any portion of the proceedings relating to the prisoner’s sentencing shall be filed at the institution within 120 days from the date sentence is imposed.
Just to be clear about it, Bush says that the post-sentencing procedure for remedying an inaccurate PSI is through the inmate complaint system, with review by certiorari.
