State v. Williams
Decision Date | 28 June 2017 |
Docket Number | Appeal No. 2016AP883-CR |
Citation | 377 Wis.2d 247,900 N.W.2d 310,2017 WI App 46 |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jamal L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Leon W. Todd, assistant state public defender of Milwaukee.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Jeffrey J. Kassel, assistant attorney general, and Brad D. Schimel, attorney general.
Before Reilly, P.J., Gundrum and Hagedorn, JJ.
¶1 Jamal Williams raises two issues on appeal. He first claims he is entitled to resentencing on the ground that the circuit court sentenced him based on an "improper and irrelevant sentencing factor," "namely, the fact that Williams refused to stipulate to restitution for which he was not legally responsible." Second, he argues the court erred on ex post facto grounds in requiring him to pay a mandatory DNA surcharge.1 We affirm the court on Williams' first claim, but reverse on the second.
¶2 On April 30, 2013, the State filed a complaint charging Williams and his brother, Tousani Tatum, with felony murder, as parties to a crime. The complaint alleged B.P. and R.W. drove to a marijuana deal B.P. had set up with Williams. Williams and Tatum exited their vehicle and met with B.P., who placed a scale on the sidewalk to measure out the marijuana. Tatum placed a gun to B.P.'s head and demanded money and marijuana, causing B.P. to run. Tatum then demanded that R.W., who was in his parked car down the street, give Tatum "his Cartier glasses." Tatum fired at the car, and R.W. died from the gunshot wound
. R.W.'s three-year-old child was in the vehicle. According to what Williams told police, when Tatum had earlier entered the vehicle Williams was driving, he possessed a gun and told Williams he was going to rob B.P. Williams also told police he tried to talk Tatum out of robbing B.P., and that after Tatum shot at R.W., he and Tatum ran back to their vehicle and drove away.
Williams agreed that these facts were accurate, and the court accepted his plea and found him guilty of the amended charge.
¶4 The circuit court ordered that a presentence investigation (PSI) be completed. An agent who was already supervising Williams, and thus was familiar with him, interviewed him and prepared a report. Williams told the agent, "I'm the big brother and what I say goes." Williams also expressed that after Tatum fired at the car R.W. was in and they then drove off, the first thing that came to Williams' mind was how they likely had "messed up" his parole. When the agent asked questions of Williams related to R.W.'s death, Williams repeatedly asked, The agent wrote in the PSI that when she "explained the drug deal, armed robbery, and the homicide were all inclusive of the sequence of events of the day, Mr. Williams repeatedly expressed concern about being made to ‘look bad.’ "
¶5 When the agent asked Williams his feelings regarding the offense, his first response was: Although Williams claimed he was innocent, when queried by the agent, he admitted going to the location to buy drugs and being aware his brother had a gun and planned to rob B.P. Williams said he pled guilty to the amended charge because it was better than going to trial on felony murder, but added,
¶6 When the agent asked Williams if he had any remorse, Williams indicated he had remorse for his brother Tatum, his mother, and his son. After prompting by the agent, Williams indicated he also had remorse for R.W.'s father and the three year old who was present when R.W., her father, died. When asked what an appropriate sentence would be, Williams responded that he felt he should get "time served and probation."
¶7 The report detailed Williams' extensive history of criminal behavior beginning at twelve years old. As the agent went through each item of Williams' criminal record with him, Williams "minimized his behavior in every single arrest, or placed blame on another person." Regarding a 2003 arrest for endangering safety by use of a weapon, Williams "boast[ed] the charge was dropped in court" and "appeared to be proud and seemingly found it humorous how many times charges have been dropped in court." Williams smiled and stated police When asked if he felt he "just got away with a lot of stuff," Williams shrugged and responded, "Rights are rights, right?" The agent further detailed Williams' "boasting" about other charges against him being dismissed.
The agent described Williams as having an "atrocious lack of remorse." The agent further observed that "[a]s the ‘big brother’ and driver, had Mr. Williams disengaged at any point, [R.W.] likely would not have lost his life in the presence of his young daughter."
¶9 At sentencing, the State told the circuit court, "There's no remorse for what happened here and he's taking no responsibility for [R.W.'s] death." The State requested Williams be ordered to pay $794 in restitution, joint and several with Tatum, related to the funeral costs of R.W., asserting "the homicide was a direct extension of this armed robbery."
¶10 Though invited to do so at the sentencing hearing, neither Williams nor his counsel made any relevant corrections to the PSI. Williams' counsel then told the circuit court that Williams had taken responsibility for his actions by pleading. He "disagree[d] strongly" with the State and PSI writer's representations that Williams lacked remorse, stating Williams "expressed to me remorse for everyone involved." Counsel added:
I guess I take issue that because he is thinking about his brother has thrown away his adult life, his mother and his son that somehow that does not reflect his remorse also for [R.W.'s fiancé], [R.W.'s] father and for [R.W.'s] daughter, and in fact, on page four of the PSI the writer states, "He did have remorse thinking about the little girl who saw her father die [and R.W.'s] father who no longer has a son."
Counsel admitted that Williams, even knowing what Tatum's intentions were, "went along to complete the transaction and this horrible, horrible thing resulted," adding that Williams "is completely aware of the effect that this transaction has had on all the families involved." On the issue of restitution, however, counsel argued that the shooting was not foreseeable and was "a separate transaction" and Williams "should not be held accountable for ... that $794."
¶11 Sentencing Williams, the circuit court stated in relevant part:
The court then discussed Williams' substantial criminal history beginning at age twelve, including the failure of prior efforts to help reform Williams. The court stated, "The only significant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Williams, 2016AP883-CR
...court relied on a proper sentencing factor—lack of remorse—and not on Williams' failure to stipulate to restitution. See State v. Williams, 2017 WI App 46, ¶ 19, 377 Wis. 2d 247, 900 N.W.2d 310. The court of appeals reversed on the DNA surcharge issue, concluding two of its prior decisions,......