MADISON — A Monroe man who previously had his three convictions for a child sex crime expunged had those expungements reversed Aug. 20 by a state appeals court.
Jordan A. Lickes, 27, was convicted in 2012 of one felony and three misdemeanors for having sex with a 16-year-old girl when he was 19 years old.
In 2014, Circuit Judge James Beer imposed but stayed three years in prison and placed him on three years extended supervision with 90 days in jail. Beer also set a number of terms of probation, including completing sex offender treatment.
If Lickes completed probation, his convictions would be deleted from his record except for one misdemeanor charge.
Lickes violated probation multiple times in 2015, including for having “unapproved sexual contact,” and giving false information to a probation agent, for which he served another 45 days in jail. In 2018, Lickes probation agent informed the court that his client had completed all court ordered conditions of probation and expungement.
District Attorney Craig Nolen opposed the expungement, saying Lickes had violated a Department of Corrections terms of probation in 2015, making him ineligible.
Beer expunged two convictions and then the third in May 2019, noting, among other things, that although Lickes had violated a DOC rule, the DOC didn’t consider it a serious violation.
On appeal, the state continued to argue that the expungement should be denied because Lickes broke a DOC rule. But his attorney stuck to his contention that Lickes didn’t violate any court-ordered term of probation, which doesn’t encompass DOC rules. If the terms or conditions should encompass DOC probation rules, then a circuit judge should have the discretion to decide if a violation would invalidate expungement.
The District IV Court of Appeals concluded that Licke’s convictions couldn’t be expunged because Beer had ordered Lickes to complete sexual offender treatment while on probation but failed to do so until after his probation ended.
The appeals court also found reason to agree with the state that terms and conditions of probation should include DOC probation rules by searching other statutes.
“(W)e conclude that the State’s interpretation of the expungement statute is supported by the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes,” Judge Jennifer Nashold wrote in the 22-page opinion.
Nolen said Thursday’s decision was the “correct one” and the expungement decision at the circuit court level was “erroneous.”
The expungement statute can be applied to offenders who are under 25 years of age when committing an offense punishable by up to six years in prison, and the public would not be harmed by the expungement.
Lickes expungement was agreed to by Nolen’s predecessor, Gary Luhman, but Nolen said he recommends them “fairly routinely.”
It gives youthful offenders an opportunity at a “clean record again if they successfully complete their sentence and probation.
“But for the additional jail sanction and revocation (Lickes) received there wouldn’t have been an expungement,” Nolen said.
Nolen also said that the sex Lickes had with the girl was nonconsensual.
Lickes attorney, Marcus Berghahn did not respond to a call seeking comment on the opinion.
Thursday’s decision restores Lickes misdemeanor convictions for fourth degree sexual assault; disorderly conduct; and exposing genitals and felony sexual Intercourse with a child.