State v. Williams

¶ 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.

Background

f 2. On April 30, 2013, the State filed a complaint charging Williams and his brother,…