State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Larry A. Tiepelman, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a defendant seeking resentencing on the ground that the circuit court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, both that the information was inaccurate and that the court actually relied on it; the defendant need not show prejudicial reliance. Once actual reliance is shown, the burden shifts to the State to prove the error harmless. Because the parties stipulated that the circuit court actually relied on inaccurate information and that the harmless-error issue was underdeveloped, the court reversed the court of appeals—which had applied the erroneous prejudicial-reliance test—and remanded for resentencing, withdrawing contrary language in several court of appeals decisions. Justice Roggensack dissented, agreeing on the actual-reliance test but arguing the court lacked authority to reverse a published court of appeals decision based solely on the parties' stipulation, and contending that on the record Tiepelman failed to show actual reliance and that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.