State Ex Rel. Singh v. Kemper
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Dissent 1
¶ 224.
2Dissent · BradleyRebecca G. Bradley, J.
I dissent from the lead opinion because Singh has not proven any ex post facto violation in this case. As the lead opinion explains, Singh contends that 2011 Act 38, which repealed Wis. Stat. § 302.113(2)(b)(2009-10) and § 304.06(1)(bg)1.(2009-10) and created Wis. Stat. § 973.198 (2011-12), was an ex post facto law.1 Singh argues the repealed statutes eliminated the opportunity that previously existed to earn early release through positive adjustment time (PAT), which Singh argues increased his punishment. He also contends the process established in § 973.198 delays up to 90 days the…
3Cases cited18 opinions
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Dobbert v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Miller v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.