State v. Andrew J. Matasek, 2014 WI 27

Defendant Andrew J. Matasek pled no contest to manufacture/delivery of THC, with maximum imprisonment of six years or less.
At sentencing, the circuit court placed him on probation with one year confinement and refused to defer expunction to after completion.
Wis. Stat. § 973.015(1)(a) authorizes expunction at the time of sentencing if the offender will benefit and society will not be harmed; § 973.015(2) defines “successful completion of the sentence” to include probation conditions.
The circuit court and Court of Appeals held expunction decisions must be made at sentencing, not deferred.
Defendant argued the statute permits delaying the expunction decision until after successful completion of the sentence; the State argues for the court’s discretion at sentencing.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the expunction decision must be made at the sentencing proceeding, and that probation is part of the “sentence” for purposes of expunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expunction must be decided at sentencing	Matasek argues expunction may be deferred	State argues decision must occur at sentencing	Decision must occur at sentencing
Whether probation is included in the “sentence” for expunction	Probation may be treated separately from sentencing	Probation not a sentence for expunction purposes	Probation is included in the sentence for expunction

State v. Horn, 226 Wis. 2d 637 (1999) (probation may be considered a criminal disposition under some statutes)
State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77 (2002) (statutory purpose guides interpretation of expunction statute)
DaimlerChrysler v. LIRC, 2007 WI 15 (2007) (statutory interpretation favors purposive, contextual reading)
State v. Martel, 2003 WI 70 (2003) (at sentencing framework used for probation-related determinations)
State v. Williams, 2002 WI 1 (2002) (at sentencing references in probation contexts)