COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED JANUARY 14, 1997 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
Nos. 96-1801-CR
96-1802-CR
96-1803-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CHADRICK B. THOMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEALS from judgments
of the circuit court for Shawano County:
EARL W. SCHMIDT, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J.,
LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Chadrick Thompson appeals the judgment sentencing him
to eight years in prison following his no contest pleas to charges of burglary,
driving a car without the owner's consent, felony escape and two counts of
battery. He argues that the probation
officer who authored the presentence report violated his due process right to a
fair sentencing procedure when she appended another presentence report prepared
two years earlier. Because we conclude
that this issue is not properly preserved for appeal, we affirm the judgments
of conviction.
At the sentencing
hearing, Thompson did not object to the court's consideration of the 1994
PSI. In fact, he argued that the family
background information contained in that document mitigated his offenses. Thompson's failure to make a timely
objection constitutes a waiver of his right to have this issue reviewed. See United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993).
Contemporaneous objection is required for several reasons. It leads to finality in criminal litigation,
encourages the parties to view the trial as an event of significance that
should be kept as error free as possible, and places the issue before the court
where society's resources have been concentrated. See State v. Davis, 199 Wis.2d 513, 518-19,
545 N.W.2d 244, 246 (Ct. App. 1996).
Thompson argues that the
error of appending a two-year-old PSI to the current PSI constitutes
"plain error," allowing review despite his failure to object. "Plain error" exists when a
fundamental or basic constitutional right has not been extended to the accused
or when an obvious seriously prejudicial error affects the accused's
substantial rights. See State v. Gustafson, 119 Wis.2d
676, 687-88, 350 N.W.2d 653, 659 (1984).
Here, the error, if any, is not a fundamental error and does not affect
Thompson's constitutional rights.
Thompson argues that the probation officer violated § 972.15, Stats., by this use of the 1994
PSI. Even if that were true, the
violation of this statute would not make the sentencing proceedings
fundamentally unfair. None of the
information contained in the 1994 PSI was untrue. The 1994 PSI could have been submitted upon order of the trial
court. All of the information contained
in the 1994 PSI could have been obtained from other sources and included in the
1996 PSI. The earlier PSI contained no
unusual or inflammatory information and the parts that were specifically
incorporated by reference were innocuous or arguably favorable to the
defense. We conclude that Thompson's sentencing
procedure did not violate any fundamental right. Therefore, any error in allowing use of a 1994 PSI did not
constitute "plain error."
By the Court.—Judgments
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.