By of the

Just because the Department of Corrections formally discharges you from a sentence and says you can vote again doesn't mean you're not still on probation, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Thursday, even if it was DOC's error not to have probation sentence in its records.

And that means you can be revoked and sent back to prison for acts you committed months after you were declared free and clear of DOC oversight.

In a 5-2 ruling, the court rejected the offender's arguments that DOC had lost jurisdiction over him, violated his due process rights by later jailing him on a revocation and that a circuit judge who ruled it was unfair did not have the option to make such a finding in a review of an administrative decision to revoke.

Ardonis Greer, 30, was convicted in Racine County of possessing marijuana and being a felon with a gun. On the pot charge, Greer served 14 months in prison, and 22 months of extended supervision. On the gun count, the judge ordered three years in prison and three years of extended supervision, but suspended it all in favor of a three year probation to be served consecutive to the sentence on the drug count.

But the DOC never entered the second part of the sentence in its computers. So when Greer finished his extended supervision in September 2007, he was told his sentence was completed, he was "discharged absolutely" and could once again vote and serve on a jury.

Two years later, Greer pleaded no contest to threatening someone with an air soft gun during an argument. During a presentence interview in 2010, a probation agent discovered the probation sentence from 2007. Greer, who had been free on bail for nearly a year, was told to come back to DOC the next day. When he did, he was arrested and put in jail on probation hold.

The DOC held a revocation hearing, Greer was found to have violated the unrecorded probation with the air soft incident, and he was jailed.

Greer appealed the DOC's administrative decision to circuit court, where a judge applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to find that that DOC, once having led Greer to believe he was free and clear, could not later revoke him.

Revocation "under circumstances as unique as found here would violate the basic principles of decency and fairness," the circuit judge found.

Greer's lawyers argue that he relied on the DOC's declaration that he was completely discharged from its oversight, and in fact voted in the 2009 presidential election -- exposing himself to potential criminal charges again.

But the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the 2009 discharge was merely an error and that DOC retained jurisdiction to revoke Greer's probation.

Greer eventually was sentenced to in 2011 to three years probation on the 2009 witness intimidation charge.

Justice Annette Ziegler wrote the majority opinion. "In sum, and with these limitations in mind, it is inconceivable that a sentence, validly imposed by a circuit court, could be undermined by a mere clerical error by an agency," she wrote.

On the issue of equitable estoppel, the majority found it was unreasonable for Greer to rely on the DOC discharge certificate, and even if it wasn't, he can't argue that such reliance extended to allowing him to commit another crime.

Justice Ann Bradley dissented, joined by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

"Although presence at sentencing would normally put a defendant on notice of the length of probation, when the DOC makes repeated representations to a defendant that his probation is complete, due process requires more," Bradley wrote.

Greer served about ten months after being revoked and the circuit judge ruling in his favor, his attorney, Jennifer Severino said, and he was free pending appeal.

He could now be made to serve the balance of a three year sentence, but Severino plans a motion to modify the sentence, or seek relief in federal court.

Greer eventually was sentenced to in 2011 to three years probation for the 2009 witness intimidation charge.