Wisconsin State Supreme Court Ruling on Sentencing Determinations with Extraneous Information

Court decisions can sometimes leave an indelible mark on the interpretation of the law, and State v. Counihan stands as a significant milestone within Wisconsin's state Supreme Court. This pivotal case highlights due process and the utilization of extraneous information in sentencing determinations.

The Wisconsin State Supreme Court grappled with two fundamental issues. Firstly, whether Counihan's failure to object during the sentencing hearing forfeited her due process claim. Secondly, if the use of extraneous information, undisclosed until the hearing, violated her due process rights.

The court ruled that Counihan's lack of objection during the hearing didn't lead to forfeiture of her rights, especially when the information was revealed at the sentencing stage. Filing a postconviction motion was deemed a timely approach to raise concerns about the information's use.

However, the court ultimately rejected Counihan's due process claim on its merits. It emphasized that the court's broad inquiry and consultation of external cases during sentencing did not infringe upon due process rights. 



Courts are encouraged to consider various sources of information, and the practice of reviewing sentences in similar cases aligns with the goal of consistent sentencing. The court asserted that this practice aids judges, especially those new to the bench, in understanding the broader context of sentencing. It highlighted that the use of extraneous information, even without advance notice, didn't violate due process. The judge's rationale for the sentence was transparent, and the sentencing hearing ensured that Counihan's sentence was individualized and fair.