Introduction

In the landmark case State of Wisconsin v. Jordan Alexander Lickes (2021 WI 60), the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed critical aspects of the state's expungement statute, Wis. Stat. § 973.015(1m). The case centered on whether the term "conditions of probation" encompassed only those conditions imposed by the sentencing court or if it also included conditions set by the Department of Corrections (DOC). The parties involved were the State of Wisconsin as the Plaintiff-Appellant and Jordan Alexander Lickes as the Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner.

Summary of the Judgment

Jordan Lickes sought the expungement of three of his convictions under Wis. Stat. § 973.015(1m), which allows for the automatic expungement of records upon successful completion of a sentence for individuals under 25 at the time of the offense. Lickes completed his probation terms but had violations related to DOC-imposed conditions. The Green County Circuit Court granted expungement, disregarding the DOC's conditions. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling.

The Supreme Court held that "conditions of probation" in Wis. Stat. § 973.015(1m)(b) encompass both the conditions set by the sentencing court and those imposed by the DOC. Consequently, any violation of these conditions bars eligibility for expungement, and circuit courts lack the discretion to overlook such violations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases to support its interpretation of the expungement statute. Notably:

• State v. Ozuna (2017 WI 64): Affirmed that both court-imposed and DOC-imposed probation conditions must be satisfied for expungement.
• State v. Matasek (2014 WI 27): Held that expungement eligibility must be determined at the time of sentencing based on statutory criteria.
• State v. Hemp (2014 WI 129): Emphasized that meeting all statutory criteria, including satisfying probation conditions, is essential for expungement.
• Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co. (2018 WI 60): Highlighted consistent statutory terminology across related statutes.

These precedents collectively reinforce the necessity of adhering to both court and DOC conditions for expungement eligibility.

Legal Reasoning

The Court employed a plain meaning statutory interpretation, emphasizing that the term "conditions of probation" should be understood in its ordinary and accepted sense. Given that both the sentencing court and DOC have the authority to impose probation conditions, the term naturally encompasses obligations set by both entities.

The majority opinion underscored that the legislature did not limit "conditions of probation" to only court-imposed terms, and courts must avoid adding restrictions not present in the statutory language. Therefore, any violation of conditions set by either the sentencing court or DOC negates eligibility for expungement.

Additionally, the Court clarified that the expungement decision is an objective inquiry based on undisputed facts at the time of sentencing and completion of probation. The circuit court lacked discretion to override findings of probation violations.

Impact

This decision has significant implications for individuals seeking expungement in Wisconsin. By clarifying that "conditions of probation" include both court and DOC-imposed terms, the ruling tightens the requirements for record expungement. Probationers must now ensure compliance with all imposed conditions to qualify for expungement, thereby reducing the likelihood of expungement approvals in cases of any violations.

Furthermore, the decision limits judicial discretion, compelling circuit courts to strictly adhere to statutory conditions without room for leniency in the face of violations. This may lead to fewer expungement successes and necessitates greater diligence from probationers in meeting all required conditions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in State v. Lickes solidifies the interpretation that "conditions of probation" encompass both court-imposed and DOC-imposed terms. By affirming that any violation of these conditions bars expungement, the Court has set a stringent standard for record sealing in the state. This enhances the accountability of probationers but also underscores the importance of adhering to all probation conditions to attain the benefits of expungement. Moving forward, individuals seeking expungement must meticulously comply with every aspect of their probation to ensure eligibility, and courts will rigorously enforce these statutory requirements without discretionary deviations.