Ayele pleaded to a battery after an attack on his father, with whom he lived. The state had charged the crime as an incident of domestic abuse carrying a surcharge under Wis. Stat. § 973.o55 but moved, as part of the plea deal, to remove this provision. The court wouldn’t go along though, and Ayele pleaded anyway. What the court did do is waive the actual imposition of the surcharge under § 973.055(4). But the judgment of conviction still notes “Domestic Abuse Assessments” in the description of the charge, and Ayele wants the notation struck.
Right away, you may wonder why Ayele cares. The court of appeals poses this question too, noting that “Ayele studiously avoids mentioning any adverse consequences of the circuit court’s decision other than an alleged mistake in the verbiage in the judgment itself.” (¶15). The likely answer lies in Wis. Stat. § 939.621, which increases the penalty for any subsequent crime of domestic abuse if there have been two others in the preceding ten years, and makes any subsequent misdemeanor a felony.
The court of appeals notes that the facts of the complaint, to which the parties stipulated as a factual basis, satisfy the statutory criteria for the surcharge, and adds that Ayele “does not develop an argument or cite this court to any legal authority supporting the proposition that a judgment of conviction for an offense that implicates WIS. STAT. § 973.055 cannot indicate as much when the court has waived the $100 surcharge in full pursuant to § 973.055(4).” (¶14). So, the judgment stays as-is.
Except, the court of appeals helpfully notes, that despite the circuit court’s oral pronouncement that the surcharge itself be waived, the $100 still appears on both the JOC and the assessment of costs. It suggests that the circuit court fix this apparent scrivener’s error on remand. (¶16).