the sentencing information balancing test urged by the dissent. The ongoing confusion concerning the breach of Wisconsin plea agreements is further highlighted by this district's issuance of an unusual, three-legged opinion. ¶ 24. While I have some sympathy with the dissent's concern about the continued integrity of the plea bargaining process, I disagree that the facts in this case can result in an unwarranted sentencing "clam up" restriction. The prosecutor not only has a right but a duty to provide information to the sentencing court. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with the prosecutor providing his or her opinion of the defendant's character, even if negative, to the sentencing court so long as the opinion is used to support the recommendation. See Ferguson, 166 Wis. 2d at 324-25 (<HOLDING>). But it makes no sense to allow the prosecutor
holding that erroneous use of statutorily unqualified person to prepare posttrial recommendation requires new recommendation and action recognizing the importance of congressional findings in determining the appropriateness of congresss remedial measures recognizing prosecutors task to attempt to convince the court of the appropriateness of the recommendation holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error holding that if counsel raises an issue the failure to convince the court to rule in an appellants favor is not ineffective performance