Court Ruling Limits Expungement
Even minor violations of state corrections' supervision rules make ex-offenders ineligible.
Even the most minor violations of Department of Corrections‘ community supervision rules make people ineligible for expungement of their criminal records, the State Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
Judges making expungement decisions have no discretion in the matter, the court said.
State law allows courts to expunge conviction records for misdemeanors and certain felonies committed by a person under the age of 25 who has successfully completed his or her sentence.
“The decision is one more step in the wrong direction and ought to be corrected by the Legislature as soon as we reconvene,” said State Rep. Evan Goyke (D-Milwaukee), an expunction reform advocate in the Legislature. “It is one more example, of the many and growing, of why Wisconsin needs a thorough reform and modernization to our expungement law.”
“The first rule of supervision, which applies to every person on probation, parole or extended supervision is, ‘Avoid all conduct which is in violation of federal or state statute, municipal or county ordinances, tribal law or which is not in the best interest of the public welfare or your rehabilitation,‘” said David Liners, state director of WISDOM and a justice reform advocate. “I do not know anyone who has not broken that rule. Rule 17, ‘Report as directed for scheduled and unscheduled appointments,’ would seem impossible to anyone who is not clairvoyant and knows to report for a meeting that has not been scheduled.”
“The rules themselves remind me of Jim Crow ‘literacy tests,’ designed to be impossible to pass,” he said. “By setting this standard, the court is doing to expungement what Jim Crow laws did to voting”
The Court of Appeals decision reversed a ruling by Green County Circuit Judge James R. Beer, who granted Jordan A. Lickes‘ request to expunge three of four convictions related to a sexual encounter he had with a 16-year-old girl in 2012, when he was 19.
“Lickes contends that a bright-line rule prohibiting expungement upon proof of a violation of even the most minor DOC rule would run contrary to the legislative purpose of the expungement statute, which is to provide a break to young offenders who demonstrate the ability to comply with the law,” District IV Court of Appeals Judge Jennifer E. Nashold wrote for the three-judge panel.
The panel rejected that interpretation.
The state’s expungement law makes no specific reference to DOC rules, but the phrase “conditions of probation” has been interpreted in other cases to refer to court- and DOC-imposed conditions, so the same definition should apply for expungement, she wrote.
While the ruling on the DOC rules infraction will likely affect the most people, it was not the only issue in the case.
Lickes was charged with fourth-degree sexual assault, sexual intercourse with a child age 16 or older, disorderly conduct, and exposing his genitals or pubic area. The first three charges were misdemeanors; the fourth was a felony.
He pleaded guilty to the sex with a child charge and no contest to the others, according to the decision.
Beer sentenced him to probation and 90 days in jail with Huber privileges.
“The court then set a number of ‘terms and conditions of probation,’ including that Lickes ‘enter into, participate [in] and successfully complete’ sex offender treatment for two of the misdemeanors and the felony, Nashold said. If he did that, those counts could be expunged.
Lickes later admitted violating his conditions of probation, Nashold said. His probation agent said Lickes had unapproved sexual conduct, was terminated from a sex offender program, and provided false information to his probation agent.
Lickes agreed to spend 45 days in jail, with Huber privileges for work and treatment, as an alternative to revocation.
In July 2018, the probation agent filed another form, this time related to the felony, indicating Lickes had completed all his requirements.
The state opposed Lickes’ request for expungement based on his probation violations, but Beer eventually granted it for the two misdemeanors and the felony.
The appeals panel, besides finding that a probation violations made a person ineligible for expungement, found that Lickes did not meet his court-ordered probation requirements because he did not complete his sex offender treatment by the time his misdemeanor probation lapsed; he completed it after that, but before his felony probation lapsed.
“The circuit court’s probation condition requiring Lickes to ‘complete’ sex offender treatment for (the misdemeanor) counts…cannot reasonably be construed to mean that Lickes was permitted to complete the treatment after his probationary period ended for those counts,” Nashold wrote. “Because Lickes did not complete sex offender treatment within the two-year probationary period for (those) counts…he did not satisfy a court-ordered condition of probation.”
Gretchen Schuldt writes a blog for Wisconsin Justice Initiative, whose mission is “To improve the quality of justice in Wisconsin by educating the public about legal issues and encouraging civic engagement in and debate about the judicial system and its operation.”