Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
NOTICE
DATED AND FILED
This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in the
bound volume of the Official Reports.
DECEMBER 23, 1997
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
                                                                                          Marilyn L. Graves         petition  to  review  an  adverse  decision  by  the
                                                                                          Clerk, Court of Appeals   Court of Appeals.  See § 808.10 and RULE 809.62,
                                                                                          of Wisconsin              STATS.
No.                                                                                       97-1602-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                        IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                          DISTRICT III
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V.
MARIONTAI STACY,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Brown County:
JOHN D. MCKAY, Judge.  Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J., Myse and Hoover, JJ.
PER CURIAM.    Mariontai Stacy, an inmate in the Wisconsin prison
system, appeals his conviction for battery to a prisoner as a party to the crime,
having entered an Alford no contest plea to the charge.    At the prison, Stacy
received  disciplinary  sanctions  for  the  same  conduct  consisting  of  eight  days
adjustment segregation and  360 days program segregation; prison officials also




NO(S). 97-1602-CR
later transferred him to a different institution.    Stacy claims that the criminal
charge,  on  top  of  the  prison  sanctions,  constitutes  unconstitutional  double
jeopardy.   While conceding that his double jeopardy argument contradicts current
case law, see, e.g., State v. Killebrew, 115 Wis.2d 243, 340 N.W.2d 470 (1983), he
claims that his prison transfer distinguishes his case and inherently converted his
prison sanctions from remedial matters into punishment.   He reasons that prison
officials no longer had grounds to base the sanctions on the need to maintain order
once they transferred him to a different institution, away from the scene of the
incident.   We reject this argument and affirm his conviction.
Stacy’s argument misunderstands the purpose of prison sanctions
and  misreads them from a  prison-centered  perspective  rather  than a  prisoner-
centered one.   Prison sanctions are primarily remedial, not punitive.   See id. at
254,  340  N.W.2d  at  476.    They serve  to  control the  prisoner’s  comportment
through behavior and attitude adjustment.    They concern the prisoner, not the
prison itself.   They retain those characteristics despite the prisoner’s change of
institution.   We have no reason to believe that Stacy’s transfer lessened his need
for  attitude  and  behavior  control.     Further,  prisoners  are  sentenced  to  the
Wisconsin State prison system, not a particular institution.   See §§ 973.013 and
973.02, STATS.   The executive branch has the power to control the placement of
prisoners and to move them from one prison to another for purposes of sound
prison administration, such as controlling problematic inmates.   This suggests that
Stacy’s transfer from one institution to another has no legal significance in terms
of  punishment.    No  matter  where  enforced,  Stacy’s  prison  sanctions  remain
primarily remedial, and we see nothing in the transfer sufficient to invoke double
jeopardy protections.
2




NO(S). 97-1602-CR
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.  See RULE 809.23(1)(b)5, STATS.
3

Download 12567.pdf

Wisconsin Law