State v. Lazaro Ozuna, 2017 WI 64

Background

In 2013 Lazaro Ozuna (then 17) pled guilty to two misdemeanors and received a stayed 120‑day sentence with 12 months probation; the court ordered expungement at sentencing conditioned on successful completion of the sentence.
A probation condition expressly prohibited possession or consumption of alcohol.
Upon Ozuna's discharge, the Department of Corrections submitted a verification form checking both that he "successfully completed" probation and that "All court ordered conditions have not been met," noting an underage drinking citation and marijuana odor incident.
The circuit court denied expungement based on DOC's report that Ozuna violated the no‑alcohol condition; the court of appeals affirmed.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding Ozuna failed to meet the statutory requirement that a probationer must "satisfy the conditions of probation" to be entitled to automatic expungement; it also rejected Ozuna's procedural‑due‑process claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ozuna)	Defendant's Argument (State/DOC)	Held
Whether a probationer is automatically entitled to expungement upon DOC's forwarding of a discharge form	Ozuna: DOC's form showing "successfully completed" means he met requirements and thus earned automatic expungement; circuit court should not deny without hearing	State/DOC: Expungement requires statutory definition of "successful completion," including that probationer "satisfied the conditions of probation"; DOC's form also reported a condition violation	Held: Probationer must satisfy all statutory criteria, including satisfying conditions; here Ozuna violated no‑alcohol term, so expungement properly denied
Whether "satisfy the conditions of probation" requires perfect compliance or sufficiency	Ozuna: "Satisfy" can mean be sufficient for the requirement; minor or isolated noncompliance can still amount to satisfaction	State: The statutory three‑part test is distinct and must be met; violation of a court‑ordered condition means the probationer did not satisfy conditions	Held: "Satisfy" means fulfill the conditions; the court emphasized that avoiding revocation is distinct from satisfying conditions; factual violation meant Ozuna did not satisfy conditions
Whether a circuit court must hold a hearing before denying expungement based on DOC's notification	Ozuna: Denial of expungement is like probation revocation and thus requires notice and hearing	State: No protected liberty interest in expungement here because Ozuna never met statutory entitlement; no disputed facts to resolve	Held: No due process violation—Ozuna had no vested entitlement because statutory criteria were unmet and he did not dispute the underlying factual violation
What effect DOC's form/certificate has when it contains inconsistent boxes	Ozuna: The form title and the checked "successfully completed" box indicate entitlement	State: Substance controls; where the form records a violation of court‑ordered conditions, DOC has reported failure to satisfy conditions	Held: Court may deny expungement when the record (including DOC verification) shows conditions were not satisfied; the mere forwarding of a form does not automatically entitle one to expungement if statutory prerequisites are unmet

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hemp, 359 Wis. 2d 320 (Wis. 2014) (expungement is automatic upon defendants' satisfaction of statutory three‑part test and DOC forwarding certificate of discharge)
State v. Matasek, 353 Wis. 2d 601 (Wis. 2014) (eligibility for expungement must be determined at sentencing)
State ex rel. Greer v. Wiedenhoeft, 353 Wis. 2d 307 (Wis. 2014) (certificate of discharge issued prematurely does not effectuate statutory discharge)
State v. Leitner, 253 Wis. 2d 449 (Wis. 2002) (expungement statute's purpose: provide a break to young offenders who comply with law)
Weber v. City of Cedarburg, 129 Wis. 2d 57 (Wis. 1986) (reputation alone is not a protected liberty interest for due process)