Background
Brian Greg Hildebrand was convicted in 2021 of stalking his former girlfriend and initially received probation under a deferred-conviction arrangement. After he resumed stalking her and damaged property, he was convicted in 2022 of stalking as a repeater and felony bail jumping as a repeater. His probation was revoked, and the circuit court again imposed probation on the 2021 offenses.
Hildebrand’s probation was later revoked after he used and possessed methamphetamine with intent to distribute, maintained a drug-trafficking place, and possessed ammunition. The revocation materials also reported intermittent contact with his former girlfriend. At sentencing after that revocation, the circuit court imposed three years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision.
Hildebrand sought resentencing, arguing that the circuit court had not adequately considered the gravity of his underlying stalking and bail-jumping offenses. The circuit court denied the motion, and Hildebrand appealed the judgments and postconviction order.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its sentencing discretion because the record showed that it considered the nature and gravity of the offenses.
The sentencing court expressly identified the nature and gravity of the offenses, noted the felony classifications and repeater enhancers, referred to the dismissed-and-read-in charges in the 12-count complaint, and explained that a time-served sentence would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the offenses. It also considered Hildebrand’s allocution, his focus on the stalking victim, his substance-abuse problems, and the need to protect the public.
The court distinguished State v. Bolstad, where the record contained no reference to facts relating to the underlying offense or indication that the court considered its gravity. Judge LoCoco concurred, stating that the sentencing explanation was flawed because it contained little discussion of Hildebrand’s actual misconduct, but concluded it narrowly satisfied the governing legal standard.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing court need not use particular words, but the record must show consideration of the required sentencing factors, including offense gravity.
- Listing felony classifications, repeater enhancers, and dismissed-and-read-in charges may support a finding that the court considered offense gravity when viewed with the full sentencing record.
- A revocation sentence may stand even where the sentencing court gives greater weight to public protection than to the gravity of the underlying offenses.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deferential review Wisconsin appellate courts give sentencing decisions and their practice of examining the entire record, including postconviction proceedings. It also underscores that a sentencing court’s explanation need only provide a rational, explainable basis for the sentence, though the concurrence cautions that courts should tie the defendant’s actual conduct more directly to the punishment imposed.