State v. Williams, 900 N.W.2d 310

On April 30, 2013, Jamal Williams pleaded guilty to amended charge of felony attempted armed robbery as a party to a crime arising from a drug‑deal robbery in which his brother shot and killed R.W.; Williams admitted he knew his brother had a gun and intended a robbery but claimed he tried to stop it.
A presentence investigation (PSI) reported Williams minimized past offenses, showed an "atrocious lack of remorse," and focused on consequences to himself and family; the State echoed the PSI at sentencing.
Defense counsel conceded factual participation and expressed remorse but argued the shooting was not foreseeable and Williams should not be liable for funeral restitution.
The circuit court sentenced Williams to 10 years imprisonment (plus extended supervision), noted Williams’ lack of remorse, declined to order the restitution (concluding it lacked authority), and ordered Williams to provide a DNA sample and pay a mandatory $250 DNA surcharge.
Williams appealed, arguing (1) the court relied on an improper/irrelevant sentencing factor—his refusal to stipulate to restitution—and (2) the mandatory DNA surcharge, made mandatory after the offense by 2013 Wis. Act 20, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause as applied to him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court improperly relied on Williams' refusal to stipulate to restitution as an aggravating factor	Williams: the court increased sentence because he would not stipulate to $794 funeral restitution	State: the court considered Williams' lack of remorse (legitimate) and only referenced refusal to stipulate as evidence of that lack of remorse; restitution authority was doubtful	Court: Affirmed — Williams did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that refusal to stipulate "formed part of the basis" for the sentence; lack of remorse was a proper aggravating factor
Whether the mandatory $250 DNA surcharge (applied after Act 20) violates the ex post facto clause as applied because Williams previously had been ordered to provide DNA and pay a surcharge in 2009	Williams: surcharge retroactively imposed is punitive here because no additional DNA analysis or sample collection relates to this conviction — State got "money for nothing"	State: conceded no DNA‑analysis activity occurred for this conviction but argued surcharge statutory purpose is civil/administrative	Court: Reversed as to surcharge — following Elward and Radaj, where retroactive mandatory surcharges that are disconnected from DNA analysis were held punitive, the court remanded to apply the statute in effect at the time of the offense (discretionary surcharge)

State v. Alexander, 360 Wis. 2d 292 (discusses burden to prove sentencing court actually relied on improper factors)
State v. Elward, 363 Wis. 2d 628 (held mandatory DNA surcharge applied where no DNA testing occurs is a punitive fine and violates ex post facto)
State v. Radaj, 363 Wis. 2d 633 (held per‑conviction mandatory DNA surcharges lack rational connection to DNA analysis costs and are punitive as applied)
State v. Scruggs, 373 Wis. 2d 312 (Wisconsin Supreme Court’s analysis of whether DNA surcharge is punitive; treated intent‑effects test)
State v. Gallion, 270 Wis. 2d 535 (recognizes lack of remorse may be considered in sentencing)