COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 21, 2012 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals	NOTICE
	This opinion is subject to further editing.� If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.� A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.� See Wis. Stat. � 808.10 and Rule 809.62.�

Appeal No.�	2011AP2750-CR	Cir. Ct. No.� 2005CF164
STATE OF WISCONSIN�			IN COURT OF APPEALS
			DISTRICT III
State of Wisconsin, ��������� Plaintiff-Respondent, ���� v. Terrence E. Boswell, ��������� Defendant-Appellant.

����������� APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Burnett County:� Eugene d. harrington, Judge.� Affirmed.�

����������� Before Hoover, P.J., Peterson and Mangerson, JJ. �

�1������� PER CURIAM.   Terrence Boswell appeals a judgment sentencing him after revocation of probation and an order denying his motion for resentencing.� He argues that the sentencing court demonstrated objective bias because it fulfilled its �promise� to sentence him to three years� initial confinement and three years� extended supervision if his probation was revoked.� We reject the argument and affirm the judgment and order.

�2������� At Boswell�s initial sentencing hearing, the court withheld sentence and placed Boswell on probation and warned:

If they revoke you, you come back here.� And if it�s another drunk driving case, indeed you will go to prison for three years and three years on extended supervision.� If you commit a bunch of things, small things that aren�t alcohol related and are subsequently revoked and no violence and there�s no alcohol, you probably won�t end up with three years in prison.� But if I need to do it at some future date you go back to prison.

Boswell�s probation was revoked based on allegations of domestic violence and alcohol consumption.� The court sentenced Boswell to three years� initial confinement and three years� extended supervision.

�3������� Boswell contends the court�s keeping its �promise� deprived him of his right to an impartial judge because the judge was objectively biased.� Objective bias can exist in two situations:� first, when there is an appearance of bias, and second, when there is actual bias.� Boswell alleges both forms of bias.� He contends a reasonable person would interpret the court�s �promise� to mean the court made up its mind before the hearing on the sentence after revocation.� While a court may tell a defendant what could happen if his probation is revoked, telling him what will happen imperils the defendant�s due process right to an impartial judge.� See State v. Goodson, 2009 WI App 107, �11, 320 Wis. 2d 166, 771 N.W.2d 385.

�4������� Goodson is distinguishable because the court there warned the defendant that he would get the maximum sentence if his supervision was revoked.� Then after revocation, the court imposed the maximum sentence because of the �agreement� made at the time of the initial sentencing.� Id., ��2, 5.� Here, the court made no reference to its earlier statements when it imposed the sentence after revocation.� Rather, it specifically considered the primary factors that relate to sentencing, the gravity of the offense, Boswell�s character and rehabilitative needs, and the need to protect the public.� See State v. Paske, 163 Wis. 2d 52, 62, 471 N.W.2d 55 (1991).

�5������� While the court�s statement at the initial sentencing hearing could be construed as prejudgment when taken out of context, considering the record as a whole, nothing suggests that the court prejudged the outcome or merely followed through on a previous �promise� to impose the maximum sentence.� The court�s comments demonstrate its attempt to �scare Boswell straight� rather than a promise to impose the maximum sentence.� This was borne out by the court�s careful consideration of the sentencing factors and its failure to reference its earlier remarks.� The court based Boswell�s sentence on his blood alcohol content, between .17 and .19 %, not less than 8.5 times the legal limit set out in Wis. Stat. � 340.01(46m) (2009-10).� The court noted that Boswell had been placed on supervision seven times with revocation occurring five of those seven times.� Boswell also failed to consistently follow the rules of his probation regarding drinking and attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.� These considerations, not the court�s earlier remarks, constitute the basis for Boswell�s sentence.�

����������� By the Court.�Judgment and order affirmed.

����������� This opinion will not be published.� See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5. (2009-10).