SUMMARY OF WISCONSIN DOJ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

In the case Lee v. Secretary Wisconsin Department of Correction summary of Brief in Opposition to Writ of Habeas:

I.  Lee states no ex post facto claim related to the repeal of the extended supervision 
     discharge law, and as a result, his petition may be denied.

     1. Enacting and then repealing a law while someone is incarcerated does not relate to the

         Ex Post Facto Clause, which only bars increasing punishment relative to its severity at

         the time of the crime

     2.  Because there is nothing retroactive about 2011 repeal of a 2009 law vis-à-vis Lee's
          crime predating 2005.

     3.  Because retroactive is a threshold ex post facto requirement a law that simply come
          and went while he was in custody cannot state ex post facto claim.

II.  Lee's petition does not state any other habeas claim.

      1.  No ex post facto claim related to "sentence structure".

      2.  Criminal conduct predated the effective date of bifurcated sentencing law (with set

           incarceration and release terms), Wis. Stat., 973.01, and instead fell under the
           previous sentencing law (with parole determinations), Wis. Stat. 302.11.

      3.  The many counts and convictions for crimes post dating truth-in-sentencing law,
           scheme which was effective for crimes on or after December 31, 1999, Lee was
           sentenced under truth-in-sentencing scheme, which provided terms of confinement
           of seven years, followed by extended supervision of six years, to run concurrently
           for various convictions - total of 13 years of imprisonment.

      4.  His assertion that the "Wisconsin Department of Corrections violates the prohibition
           of ex post facto laws" makes no sense.

      5.  Lee is no longer incarcerated, so a complaint about bifurcation could go no where
           under habeas:  "habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality
           of that custody".  Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, (1973).

      6.  A party seeking habeas relief must "show that there was no other adequate remedy
           available in the law."  State ex rel. Hass v. Reynolds, 2002 WI 43.

The above are summarized version of the Wisconsin Department of Justice opposition to
my writ of habeas corpus.  I will file my reply.