State v. Barbeau
883 N.W.2d 520
Wis. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2012, then-13-year-old Antonio Barbeau and another juvenile murdered Barbeau's great-grandmother in a violent attack; Barbeau pleaded no contest to first-degree intentional homicide (Class A felony, life sentence).
- At plea and sentencing the parties and court believed parole eligibility applied; the court set eligibility for release (parole) 35 years later (Nov. 24, 2048).
- After judgment, the Department of Corrections notified the court that for Class A life sentences Truth-in-Sentencing replaced parole with extended supervision; the court, DA, and defense initially agreed the judgment should be amended to refer to extended supervision.
- New counsel moved for resentencing, arguing the parole/extended-supervision error is a "new factor" justifying earlier eligibility (20 years), ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the statutory scheme violates Eighth Amendment and analogous Wisconsin protections for juveniles.
- The circuit court amended the judgment to reflect extended supervision eligibility on Nov. 24, 2048, but denied resentencing and rejected the constitutional challenges. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barbeau) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mischaracterizing eligibility as "parole" rather than "extended supervision" is a new factor warranting resentencing | The error is a new factor because parole and extended supervision differ materially; counsel should have presented more youth/rehabilitation evidence at sentencing, which could have produced a 20-year eligibility date | The two schemes functionally give the sentencing court the same three options (20 years, later date, or no release); the mistake did not materially affect the eligibility decision | Not a new factor; court properly declined to modify the sentence |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to recognize parole law vs. extended supervision | Counsel's ignorance prejudiced Barbeau by failing to develop and present information relevant to the correct release regime | Barbeau waived a Machner hearing; he has not shown prejudice under Strickland | Waived and, in any event, prejudice not shown |
| Categorical Eighth Amendment challenge to statute allowing life without supervised release for juveniles | Statute permitting life without any supervised-release option (or imposing long mandatory minimums) is unconstitutional when applied to juveniles | Wisconsin law accords sentencing discretion (including consideration of youth); Ninham and Miller do not require categorical invalidation here | No categorical violation; Barbeau lacks standing to challenge options he was not subjected to, and precedent supports discretion-based sentencing |
| Whether mandatory 20-year minimum or the extended supervision process denies juveniles a meaningful opportunity for release based on maturity/rehabilitation | Mandatory minimums and limited-release criteria (danger-to-public only; no guaranteed counsel/hearing) foreclose meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity | Barbeau received well beyond 20 years so lacks standing to challenge the minimum; extended supervision requires proof (clear and convincing) of not being a danger, which subsumes maturity/rehabilitation considerations | No violation: Barbeau lacks standing as to the minimum; extended supervision law does not deny a meaningful opportunity for release |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harbor, 333 Wis. 2d 53 (2011) (new-factor framework and standards for sentence modification)
- State v. Ninham, 333 Wis. 2d 335 (2011) (upholding discretionary life terms for juvenile homicide defendants and application of Eighth Amendment principles)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional because sentencers must consider youth)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders violates Eighth Amendment; states must provide meaningful opportunity for release)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty unconstitutional for juvenile offenders)
- State v. Brown, 298 Wis. 2d 37 (2006) (Truth in Sentencing made extended supervision and reconfinement functional substitutes for prior parole)