State v. Timothy J. K., 2011AP1091, District 2, 10/5/11
The trial court’s requirement of sex offender registration, § 301.45(1m)(d)(1), is upheld against an argument that the court misconstrued an expert’s recommendation of no registration.
¶9 Timothy fails to clear the first hurdle of the Tiepelman standard. The circuit court’s decision to require Timothy to register as a sex offender was not based on any mistaken information. Lodl clearly stated “I would recommend that Timothy not be required to register as a sex offender.” The circuit court did not misread Lodl’s recommendation; rather, it concluded that Lodl’s recommendation was not strong enough. Indeed, Lodl’s original assessment did not include a recommendation as to whether Timothy should have to register as a sex offender. Lodl originally wrote that “[t]here are presently no empirically validated actuarial instruments that can be used to accurately estimate the risk of adolescent sexual reoffending.” It was only after the State wrote a letter to the court requesting Lodl’s opinion that Lodl came out against registration. Furthermore, Lodl characterized Timothy’s estimated risk of reoffending as “low,” not nonexistent. Lodl also wrote that Timothy should be reevaluated again in at most two years to determine if his risk of reoffending had changed. Finally, the circuit court noted the therapist’s recommendation that Timothy register as a sex offender, indicating that the court did not rely exclusively on Lodl’s report in reaching its conclusion.