State v. Sobonya, 872 N.W.2d 134

Courtney Sobonya pled guilty to possession of heroin; other drug charges were dismissed and read in for sentencing.
At sentencing the court placed Sobonya on two years probation and denied her request for expungement, finding expungement would undermine the sentence's deterrent effect and harm society.
After sentencing Sobonya retained a sociology professor who produced a report concluding that expungement better serves public safety and reintegration.
Sobonya moved for sentence modification, arguing the postsentencing report was a "new factor" that warranted expungement; the trial court accepted the report as a "new factor" but denied modification.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the expert opinion challenging the court's sentencing objectives is not a "new factor" for modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the postsentencing expert report is a "new factor" justifying sentence modification	Report is newly created, its research was not considered at sentencing, and it directly contradicts the court's deterrence rationale	The report is an opinion based on existing/knowable facts and merely challenges the court's sentencing discretion	Not a "new factor": an opinion about sentencing objectives does not qualify
Whether a contrary expert opinion about deterrence undermines the trial court's discretion	Expert evidence shows expungement would not harm society and thus sentencing decision should be reconsidered	Trial court discretion on sentencing objectives (including deterrence) is entitled to substantial deference; opposing opinion is a reconsideration request	Denial affirmed: challenging the court's weighing of sentencing objectives is reconsideration, not new factor relief

State v. Harbor, 333 Wis. 2d 53, 797 N.W.2d 828 (Wis. 2011) (describes "new factor" standard and sentence-modification framework)
Rosado v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 280, 234 N.W.2d 69 (Wis. 1975) (definition of "new factor")
State v. Grindemann, 255 Wis. 2d 632, 648 N.W.2d 507 (Ct. App. 2002) (distinguishing facts from expert opinion)
State v. Slagoski, 244 Wis. 2d 49, 629 N.W.2d 50 (Ct. App. 2001) (trial court may accept or reject postconviction expert opinions)
State v. Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197 (Wis. 2004) (sentencing objectives and need for individualized reasoning)
McCleary v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 263, 182 N.W.2d 512 (Wis. 1971) (requirement that trial judge state facts and reasons for sentence)
State v. Ninham, 333 Wis. 2d 335, 797 N.W.2d 451 (Wis. 2011) (post hoc research may not create a new factor when conclusions were already known)
State v. McDermott, 339 Wis. 2d 316, 810 N.W.2d 237 (Ct. App. 2012) (similar treatment of scientific studies and new-factor claims)