State v. Christopher Joseph Allen
890 N.W.2d 245
Wis.2017Background
- In 2013 Christopher Allen pled no contest to homicide and great bodily injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle; PSI showed a 2005 substantial battery conviction that had been expunged in 2011 after successful supervision.
- At sentencing the State and the PSI referenced facts from the expunged conviction (information came from a CIB/FBI criminal background report, not expunged court files); defense counsel did not object.
- The circuit court imposed 5 years initial confinement and 4 years extended supervision, noting Allen had an earlier opportunity to learn while on supervision that resulted in expunction.
- Allen moved for a new sentencing hearing arguing Leitner barred use of facts tied to an expunged conviction and that counsel was ineffective for failing to object; the circuit court and court of appeals rejected his claims.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed: Leitner allows a sentencing court to consider all facts underlying an expunged record of conviction so long as those facts are not sourced from expunged court records; counsel was not ineffective because any objection would have been meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leitner permits consideration of a defendant's prior successful supervision from an expunged conviction | State: Leitner allows sentencing courts to consider facts underlying expunged convictions if sourced outside court records | Allen: Leitner should be limited to facts underlying the prior crime itself or only facts interrelated to the current offense; prior successful supervision is not individualized and should not be considered | Court: Permitted — Leitner allows consideration of all facts underlying an expunged record so long as not obtained from expunged court records |
| Whether consideration of prior successful completion of supervision defeats expunction's purpose | State: Expunction shields against some consequences but does not erase facts in non-court records that bear on sentencing | Allen: Considering successful supervision undermines the "fresh start" goal of expunction | Court: Does not defeat purpose — expunction removes court records but does not erase facts from other government files; sentencing may consider such facts |
| Whether references to the expunged conviction in the PSI and by the State were improper | Allen: PSI and State referenced expunged conviction facts and court relied on them | State: References derived from non-court sources (CIB/FBI report) and are allowed under Leitner | Court: Proper — PSI sources were not expunged court records, so their use was permitted |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object | Allen: Counsel should have objected to references to the expunged conviction | State: Any objection would have been meritless under Leitner | Court: Counsel was not ineffective — no deficient performance because objections would lack merit |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leitner, 253 Wis. 2d 449 (2002) (sentencing courts may consider facts underlying expunged convictions when those facts come from non-court government files)
- State v. Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535 (2004) (sentencing courts must state reasons linking sentence components to objectives; judges may rely on information from others)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test: deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Hemp, 359 Wis. 2d 320 (2014) (expunction offers youthful offenders a fresh start; expunged records have limited continuing consequences)
- State v. Tourville, 367 Wis. 2d 285 (2016) (ineffective assistance claims present mixed questions of fact and law)