## Facts

- David W. Oakley fathered nine children with four women and repeatedly failed to pay court-ordered child support, accruing arrears exceeding $25,000.
- Oakley had prior convictions (and additional read-ins) for intentional refusal to pay child support.
- The State charged Oakley with multiple counts of felony intentional nonsupport under Wis. Stat. § 948.22, including repeater allegations.
- After the State withdrew from an earlier plea agreement, Oakley entered a later agreement and pleaded no contest to one count of felony nonsupport as a repeater; other counts were dismissed and read in.
- The circuit court imposed probation rather than imprisonment and added a special condition barring Oakley from having additional children during probation unless he demonstrated that he was supporting his existing children and had the ability to support another child.
- Oakley sought postconviction relief, arguing the procreation condition was unconstitutional and that the State’s withdrawal from the earlier plea agreement violated due process; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a probation condition restricting a defendant from procreating during probation—unless he proves he is supporting existing children and can support another—violates the constitutional right to procreate when imposed on a chronic, intentional child-support offender.
2. Whether a defendant who enters a subsequent plea agreement and pleads no contest waives a claim that the State improperly withdrew from an earlier plea agreement.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court upheld the probation condition, concluding that under the case’s exceptional facts it was not overly broad and was reasonably related to rehabilitation despite affecting a fundamental liberty interest.
- The court held Oakley waived any due-process challenge to the State’s withdrawal from the earlier plea agreement by entering a later agreement and pleading no contest.
- On reconsideration, the court denied relief and emphasized the holding’s fact-specific nature, focusing on intentional unwillingness to pay support rather than inability to pay.

## Legal Principles

- Sentencing courts have broad discretion to impose probation conditions that restrict liberty if the condition is reasonable and serves probationary goals, including rehabilitation and compliance with law.
- A probation condition affecting a fundamental right may be upheld when limited to the probation term, conditional rather than absolute, and justified by the defendant’s record and rehabilitative needs.
- In evaluating probation conditions, courts may consider that probation is less restrictive than incarceration and may permit tailored constraints that would be unnecessary or irrelevant if the defendant were imprisoned.
- The State has a compelling interest in enforcing child-support obligations and protecting children from the harms associated with intentional nonsupport.
- A no-contest plea waives defenses and due-process claims premised on the prosecutor’s alleged breach or withdrawal from an earlier plea agreement when the defendant later enters a new plea agreement and pleads.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a probation condition temporarily restricting procreation for a repeat child-support offender as a conditional, time-limited measure reasonably tied to rehabilitation and the enforcement of support obligations, and it ruled that Oakley’s later no-contest plea waived any challenge to the State’s withdrawal from an earlier plea agreement.


State v. Oakley, 245 Wis. 2d 447, 629 N.W.2d 200 (Wis. 2001)