State v. Roundtree
| Citation | 395 Wis.2d 94,952 N.W.2d 765,2021 WI 1 |
| Decision Date | 07 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2018AP594-CR,2018AP594-CR |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Leevan ROUNDTREE, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Kaitlin A. Lamb assistant state public defender. There was an oral argument by Kaitlin A. Lamb.
For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief filed by Sarah L. Burgundy, assistant attorney general; with whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Sarah L. Burgundy.
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., filed a dissenting opinion. HAGEDORN, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
¶1 The petitioner, Leevan Roundtree, seeks review of an unpublished per curiam decision of the court of appeals affirming his judgment of conviction and the denial of his motion for postconviction relief.1 He asserts that the felon-in-possession statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional as applied to him.
¶2 Specifically, Roundtree contends that Wisconsin's lifetime firearm ban for all felons is unconstitutional as applied to him because his conviction over ten years ago for failure to pay child support does not justify such a ban. He maintains that the conviction was for a nonviolent felony and that no public safety objective is served by preventing him from owning a firearm.
¶3 The parties disagree as to the level of scrutiny that we should employ to resolve this constitutional challenge. Roundtree advances that we should subject the statute to the requirements of a strict scrutiny review. The State counters that the application of intermediate scrutiny is consistent with precedent.
¶4 We determine that Roundtree's challenge to the felon-in-possession statute ( Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2) (2013-14)2 ) requires the application of an intermediate level of scrutiny. Under such an intermediate scrutiny analysis, we conclude that his challenge fails. The statute is constitutional as applied to Roundtree because it is substantially related to important governmental objectives, namely public safety and the prevention of gun violence.
¶5 Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
¶6 In 2003, Roundtree was convicted of multiple felony counts of failure to support a child for more than 120 days.3 As a consequence of these felony convictions, Roundtree was, and continues to be, permanently prohibited from possessing a firearm.
¶7 Milwaukee police executed a search warrant at Roundtree's home on October 30, 2015. Under his mattress, officers located a revolver and ammunition. A record check of the recovered gun revealed that it had been stolen in Texas. Roundtree claimed that "he purchased the firearm from a kid on the street about a year ago, but that he did not know it was stolen."
¶8 The State charged Roundtree with a single count of possession of a firearm by a felon contrary to Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2). He pleaded guilty and was subsequently sentenced to 18 months of initial confinement and 18 months of extended supervision.
¶9 Roundtree moved for postconviction relief, arguing that Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2), the felon-in-possession statute, was unconstitutional as applied to him. The circuit court held the motion in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Class v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 798, 803, 200 L.Ed.2d 37 (2018), which determined that a federal criminal defendant does not waive a constitutional challenge to the statute of conviction on direct appeal by entering a guilty plea.4
¶10 After the issuance of the Class opinion, the circuit court ultimately determined that Roundtree waived his constitutional challenge by entering a guilty plea. Consequently, the circuit court denied Roundtree's motion for postconviction relief.5
¶11 Roundtree appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed, albeit on different grounds. State v. Roundtree, No. 2018AP594-CR, unpublished slip op., 2019 WL 1474960 (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2019) (per curiam). Instead of resting on the guilty plea waiver rule, the court of appeals determined that "regardless of whether Roundtree forfeited the constitutional argument by entering a guilty plea, ... the argument fails on its merits." Id., ¶5. By way of explanation on the merits, the court of appeals expounded, Id., ¶7. Like the court of appeals, we, too, determine that Roundtree's argument fails on its merits, and therefore we need not address whether he waived his constitutional challenge.6
¶12 Roundtree asks us to review whether Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2) is unconstitutional as applied to him. Examining the constitutional application of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews independently of the determinations rendered by the circuit court or court of appeals. State v. McGuire, 2010 WI 91, ¶25, 328 Wis. 2d 289, 786 N.W.2d 227.
¶13 In our review, we must also determine the appropriate level of scrutiny to guide our analysis. This issue likewise presents a question of law that we determine independently. See Brandmiller v. Arreola, 199 Wis. 2d 528, 536-37, 540-41, 544 N.W.2d 894 (1996).
¶14 We begin by setting forth Roundtree's argument and some necessary background regarding the individual right to bear arms. Subsequently, we determine the level of scrutiny under which we examine the felon-in-possession statute. Finally, we apply the appropriate level of scrutiny.
¶15 Roundtree was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon contrary to Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2)(a), which provides that a person convicted of a felony in this state "is guilty of a Class G felony if he or she possesses a firearm under any of the following circumstances ...." The circumstance applicable here is that "[t]he person possesses a firearm subsequent to the conviction for the felony or other crime, as specified in sub. (1)(a) or (b)." § 941.29(2)(a).
¶16 This statute, as Roundtree correctly observes, bars a person convicted of any felony from firearm possession after that conviction without exception, with no time limitation, and with no mechanism for restoration of the right to possess a firearm. The statute does not draw any distinctions among felonies. Those convicted of less serious felonies are banned from possessing firearms just as are those convicted of the most serious felonies.
¶17 In Roundtree's estimation, this statutory scheme is unconstitutional as applied to him. There are two major types of constitutional challenges: facial and as-applied. Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, ¶11, 387 Wis. 2d 1, 927 N.W.2d 486. A party challenging a law as unconstitutional on its face must show that the law cannot be constitutionally enforced under any circumstances. Id. (citation omitted).
¶18 In contrast, in an as-applied challenge, the court assesses the merits of the challenge by considering the facts of the particular case before it. State v. Wood, 2010 WI 17, ¶13, 323 Wis. 2d 321, 780 N.W.2d 63. For an as-applied challenge to succeed, the challenger must demonstrate that the challenger's constitutional rights were actually violated. Id. If such a violation occurred, the operation of the law is void as to the facts presented for the party asserting the claim. Id. We presume that the statute is constitutional, and the party raising a constitutional challenge must prove that the challenged statute has been applied in an unconstitutional manner beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., ¶15.
¶19 Roundtree's as-applied challenge is based on the contention that his conviction for failure to pay child support is a nonviolent felony and thus is insufficient to curtail his constitutional right to bear arms. He argues that "[d]isarming [him] does not in any way advance public safety, but deprives him of his right to keep and bear arms for self-defense." As this is an as-applied challenge, he must demonstrate that his constitutional rights specifically were violated, not that the statute is unconstitutional in all applications.
¶20 We begin our assessment of Roundtree's claim with some background on the right to bear arms. Both the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions provide for this right. U.S. Const. amend. II ; Wis. Const. art. I, § 25.7
¶21 The United States Supreme Court has made clear that "[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). The same is true of the right provided by our State Constitution.
Moran v. DOJ, 2019 WI App 38, ¶48, 388 Wis. 2d 193, 932 N.W.2d 430. Indeed, the Second Amendment secures "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." Heller, 554 U.S. at 635, 128 S.Ct. 2783.
¶22 In Heller, the Court struck down a regulation barring residential handgun possession as contrary to the Second Amendment. Id. In doing so, the Court observed "that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms." Id. at 595, 128 S.Ct. 2783. It was careful, however, to delineate the reach of its analysis:
[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Id. at 626-27, 128 S.Ct. 2783.
¶23 The Court identified such regulations as "presumptively lawful," id....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Augustine Sch. v. Taylor
...is informed by the Constitution and precedent. The application of constitutional principles likewise presents a question of law. State v. Roundtree, 2021 WI 1, ¶12, 395 Wis. 2d 94, 952 N.W.2d 765.III¶25 We begin by setting the foundation for our analysis, detailing the history of this court......
-
State v. Foster
...the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."); State v. Roundtree , 395 Wis. 2d 94, 103, 115, 952 N.W.2d 765 (2021) (felon in possession statute not unconstitutional under Wis. Const. art. 1, § 25 —"[t]he people have the right to k......
-
State v. Christen
...a question of law that this court reviews independently of the determinations rendered by the circuit court or court of appeals." State v. Roundtree, 2021 WI 1, ¶12, 395 Wis. 2d 94, 952 N.W.2d 765 . ¶24 This case also requires us to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny to guide our ......
-
State v. Prado
...a law as unconstitutional on its face must demonstrate that the law cannot be constitutionally enforced under any circumstances. State v. Roundtree, 2021 WI 1, ¶17, 395 Wis. 2d 94, 952 N.W.2d 765 (citing Michels v. Lyons, 2019 WI 57, ¶11, 387 Wis. 2d 1, 927 N.W.2d 486 ).13 The Fourth Amendm......