State v. Matasek, 831 N.W.2d 450

Wis. Stat. § 973.015 grants circuit courts discretion to expunge convictions upon successful completion of sentence.
Matasek was charged with manufacture or delivery of THC (>200–1000 grams) as a party to a crime and pled no contest.
At sentencing, Matasek’s counsel asked the court to consider expunction if he completed the sentence; not to decide expunction immediately.
The court denied deferring the expunction decision, citing the statute’s plain language that the decision must be made at sentencing and noting public policy considerations.
Matasek received three years of probation with one year in jail; he appeals only the timing issue of expunction under § 973.015(l)(a).
The court held the expunction decision must occur at sentencing, and that deferring would conflict with subsection (2), which contemplates action upon completion by the detaining or probationary authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expunction must be decided at sentencing or can be deferred	Matasek argues for deferring expunction to post-sentence.	State argues expunction decision occurs at sentencing.	Expunction decision must be made at sentencing.

State v. Arends, 325 Wis. 2d 1 (2010 WI 46) (statutory interpretation framework for plain meaning and ambiguity)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004 WI 58) (guide to interpretation; plain meaning and context)
Bruno v. Milwaukee County, 260 Wis.2d 633 (2003 WI 28) (statutory interpretation; avoidance of surplusage)
Cavey v. Walrath, 598 N.W.2d 240 (Ct. App. 1999) (interpretation constraints; avoid adding words to statute)
State v. Cesar G., 682 N.W.2d 1 (2004 WI 61) (statutory discretion unless mandatory timing provision exists)
Rotfeld v. DNR, 434 N.W.2d 617 (Ct. App. 1988) (discretion generally; not to timing)