On Point: 16. Ex Post Facto

State v. Jamal L. Williams, 2016AP883-CR, 2018 WI 59, 5/30/18, reversing in part, a published court of appeals opinion, 2017 WI App 46, case activity (including briefs)

In a 5-0 opinion (Roggensack and A.W. Bradley did not participate) SCOW overruled two court of appeals decisions, State v. Elward and State v. Radaj, which had held that the §973.046  mandatory DNA surcharge violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the state and federal constitutions. SCOW delved into the reasoning of both cases and found it “faulty.” It further held that a circuit court may consider a defendant’s opposition to paying restitution as part of his character or lack of remorse when choosing a sentence.

State v. Arthur Allen Freiboth, 2015AP2535-CR, District IV, 2/26/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

…[W]e certify the present appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide whether a defendant who was not advised at the time of the plea that he or she faced multiple mandatory DNA surcharges has grounds for plea withdrawal.

State v. Jamal L. Williams, 2017 WI App 46, cross petitions for review granted 10/10/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Is the imposition of a single mandatory $250 DNA surcharge an ex post facto violation with respect to a defendant who committed his offense when the surcharge was discretionary and who previously had provided a DNA sample in another case?

2. Is Jamal Williams entitled to resentencing because the circuit court sentenced him based on an improper factor, namely, the fact that Williams refused to stipulate to restitution for which he was not legally responsible?

State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15, affirming a published court of appeals decision; 2014AP2981-CR, 2/23/2017; case activity (including briefs)

On June 30, 2013, Wisconsin enacted its biennial budget bill. Among its provisions were changes to the DNA surcharge applied to criminal convictions in Wisconsin. The $250 surcharge became mandatory rather than discretionary for all felonies (rather than just a few as previously), and would now be applied on a per-count basis rather than once per case. The bill also created a new, mandatory $200-per-count surcharge for misdemeanors.

State ex re. Aman Singh v. Paul Kemper, 2016 WI 67, 7/13/16, affirming in part and reversing in part a published court of appeals decision, 2014 WI App 43, 353 Wis. 2d 520, 846 N.W.2d 820; case activity (including briefs)

This habeas case involves three discrete ex post facto claims regarding multiple offenses committed and disposed of over a short time span during which there were three versions of Truth-in-Sentencing. A fractured court issues five separate opinions, resulting in holdings that find some ex post facto violations but apparently provide no relief to Singh, the petitioner.

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point):

Does the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws bar the mandatory imposition of a DNA surcharge for a single felony conviction based on conduct that was committed before the mandatory DNA surcharge requirement took effect?

David Conrad v. United States, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3216, 3/4/16

Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013), held that the ex post facto clause prohibits a sentencing court from using a Sentencing Guideline in effect at the time of sentencing instead of the Guideline in effect at the time of the offense if the new version of the Guideline provides a higher applicable sentencing range than the old version. The Seventh Circuit holds Peugh shouldn’t be applied retroactively to allow resentencing in a case that was final before Peugh was decided.

Michael J. Belleau v. Edward F. Wall, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-3225, 1/29/16

The Seventh Circuit holds that Wis. Stat. § 301.48, which requires certain sex offenders to wear a GPS monitoring device, does not violate either the Fourth Amendment or the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. This decision reverses a Wisconsin federal district judge’s decision striking down the statute.

As we wait on SCOW to decide the petition for review on State v. Scruggs, ASPD Peter Heyne offers some news and thoughts on DNA surcharges. On January 7, 2016, the court of appeals rejected a no-merit report in State v. Jeffrey J. Wickman noting that neither State v. Radaj nor State v. Scruggs “squarely addresses whether a mandatory DNA surcharge is appropriate in circumstances where the defendant has previously submitted a DNA sample. Rather, at this time, it remains an open question whether a mandatory DNA surcharge is punitive in effect when applied to a defendant who previously gave a DNA sample or paid a surcharge.” (Wickman at 6-7).

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity;  petition for review; response and cross petition; order granting review

Issues (from Singh’s petition and the State’s cross petition)

Whether the retroactive application of provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 38, which repealed provisions of 2009 Wisconsin Act 28 that gave inmates the opportunity to apply for early release, increases an offender’s penalty and therefore violates the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions.

If retroactive application of Act 38 in general violated the ex post facto clauses, did Act 38’s change in the procedure for granting release under one of the early release provisions (positive adjustment time, or PAT) violate the ex post facto clauses.