State v. Corey T. Rector, 990 N.W.2d 213

In 2018 the State charged Corey Rector with ten counts of possession of child pornography after seizing over 1,000 images/videos; pursuant to a plea deal he pled guilty to five counts in a single case during the same hearing; five counts were dismissed.
The circuit court sentenced Rector to concurrent terms and ordered sex-offender registration for 15 years; the court also found him ineligible for the Earned Release Program (ERP).
The Department of Corrections moved to amend the Judgment of Conviction, arguing Wis. Stat. § 301.45(5)(b)1. requires lifetime registration because Rector was convicted on multiple counts; the circuit court denied the motion.
The State cross-appealed the denial (arguing multiple convictions = "2 or more separate occasions"); Rector appealed the ERP ineligibility ruling; the court of appeals certified the question to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed: (1) Rector’s convictions—filed in one case and entered at the same hearing—were not convictions on “2 or more separate occasions,” so only 15-year registration applied; and (2) the circuit court did not erroneously exercise discretion in denying ERP eligibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "on 2 or more separate occasions" in Wis. Stat. § 301.45(5)(b)1. requires lifetime registration	"Separate occasions" means two or more convictions; multiple convictions satisfy the phrase even if entered in the same case/hearing	"Separate occasions" requires distinct occasions (set apart in time or proceeding); convictions entered in one case at the same hearing are not separate	Court held the plain meaning of "separate occasions" requires convictions to be set apart; convictions in a single case and entered at the same hearing are not "separate occasions," so 15-year registration was proper
Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in denying Rector ERP eligibility	(State) Circuit court properly exercised discretion to deny ERP	Rector argued the court applied a preconceived policy and ignored individual mitigating factors	Court held the sentencing court explained individualized reasoning (focus on whether substance abuse was a criminogenic factor), so denial of ERP was not an erroneous exercise of discretion

State v. Wittrock, 119 Wis. 2d 664 (1984) (construed "separate occasions" in repeater statute to encompass separate convictions even if entered in same proceeding)
State v. Hopkins, 168 Wis. 2d 802 (1992) (held the term "occasion" in repeater statute refers to the occasion of conviction; number of convictions controls)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (statutory interpretation starts with plain meaning and context)
Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022) (discussed ordinary meaning of "occasion" and that one "occasion" can encompass multiple discrete activities)
State v. Kaminski, 245 Wis. 2d 310 (2001) (recognized statutory purpose of registry to protect public; referenced convictions-based notifications)
State v. Ogden, 199 Wis. 2d 566 (1996) (explained when a sentencing court’s categorical policy can amount to an erroneous exercise of discretion)
State v. Forrett, 401 Wis. 2d 678 (2022) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)