Wisconsin § 971.26 - Formal defects.

§ 971.26. Formal defects.

No indictment, information, complaint or warrant shall be invalid, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matters of form which do not prejudice the defendant. 971.26 Annotation The fact that the information alleged the wrong date for the offense was not prejudicial when the complaint stated the correct date and there was no evidence that the defendant was misled. A charge of the violation of s. “946.42 (2) (a) (c)” was a technical defect of language when both paragraphs applied. Burkhalter v. State, 52 Wis. 2d 413 , 190 N.W.2d 502 (1971). 971.26 Annotation The failure to cite in the information and certificate of conviction the correct statutory subsections violated was immaterial when the defendant could not show that the defendant was misled. Craig v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 489 , 198 N.W.2d 609 (1972). 971.26 Annotation A lack of prejudice to the defendant, notwithstanding technical defects in the information, was made patent by defense counsel’s concession that the defendant knew precisely what crime the defendant was charged with having committed, and the absence in the record of any such claim asserted during the case, which was vigorously tried. Clark v. State, 62 Wis. 2d 194 , 214 N.W.2d 450 (1974). 971.26 Annotation Failure to allege lack of consent was not a fatal jurisdictional defect of an information charging burglary. Schleiss v. State, 71 Wis. 2d 733 , 239 N.W.2d 68 (1976). 971.26 Annotation No statute authorizes a clerk of court’s office to correct a clerical error in the sentence portion of a judgment of conviction. The circuit court, and not the clerk’s office, must determine the merits of a request for a change in the sentence portion of a written judgment because of an alleged clerical error. State v. Prihoda, 2000 WI 123 , 239 Wis. 2d 244 , 618 N.W.2d 857 , 98-2263 . 971.26 Annotation Section 971.08 (2), requiring vacation of judgment and permission to withdraw a plea in the event of improper notice of the consequences of the plea on immigration and naturalization, is subject to harmless error analysis under this section and s. 805.18. Douangmala , 2002 WI 62 , was objectively wrong because it failed to properly consider the harmless error statutes, this section and s. 805.18, and is thus overruled. The mandatory “shall” in s. 971.08 (2) did not control when both of the harmless error savings statutes also use the mandatory “shall” language. This section and ss. 805.18 and 971.08 (2) are most comprehensibly harmonized by applying harmless error analysis. All of the relevant statutes use “shall,” and, accordingly, none is “more mandatory” than any other. State v. Reyes Fuerte, 2017 WI 104 , 378 Wis. 2d 504 , 904 N.W.2d 773 , 15-2041 .