COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

April 19, 2023

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2022AP995-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2020CF105

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT II

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

 V.

ISAAC M. GABLER,

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for 

Calumet County: JEFFREY S. FROEHLICH, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 NEUBAUER, J.1 Isaac M. Gabler appeals from a judgment of 

conviction entered after he pled no contest to three misdemeanors and from an 

 

1

 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(f) (2021-22). 

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2022AP995-CR

2

order denying his postconviction motion. Gabler does not challenge his 

underlying convictions for disorderly conduct and violation of a temporary 

restraining order. Gabler does contend, however, that the circuit court erroneously 

exercised its discretion in denying his request that his convictions be expunged. 

More specifically, he argues that the court’s decision rests on inaccurate 

information. For the reasons explained below, this court rejects Gabler’s 

arguments and affirms the judgment and order.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The facts relevant to this appeal arise out of several actions 

commenced against Gabler in 2020. Judge Jeffrey S. Froehlich presided over all 

of the legal proceedings and issued all of the orders discussed in this opinion.

The Temporary Restraining Orders and Harassment Injunction

¶3 On April 8, 2020, Richard G., the father of eighteen-year-old 

Evelyn G.,2filed a petition on Evelyn’s behalf seeking a temporary restraining 

order (TRO) and injunction against Gabler pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 813.125. 

Richard filed the petition three days after Gabler, a former high school classmate 

of Evelyn, came to Evelyn’s home and told Richard “he wanted to take [Evelyn] 

so she could take his virginity.” According to police, Richard “told [Gabler] it 

would be best for him to leave,” at which point Gabler said, “[a]re you sure you 

want to do that,” “slowly walk[ed] back into his vehicle,” and “continued to stare 

at [Richard] with a smile on his face.” Richard told police that Gabler left but 

 

2

 This court refers to the victim and her father by pseudonyms consistent with the policy 

set forth in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.86(1).
No. 2022AP995-CR

3

“drove past the residence a short while later ... again staring at [Richard].” 

Richard incorrectly listed Evelyn’s date of birth on the petition, misidentifying her 

as a minor. 

¶4 The circuit court held a hearing on the petition on April 22, 2020. 

Evelyn and her parents were the only persons to appear at the hearing, which was 

held telephonically due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After briefly questioning 

Richard and noting the discrepancy concerning Evelyn’s date of birth, the court 

granted the TRO but directed that Evelyn sign and file an amended petition 

correctly listing her birth date. Evelyn filed an amended petition later that day. 

¶5 On April 29, 2020, the circuit court held a telephone hearing on the 

amended petition. In addition to Evelyn and her parents, Gabler and his attorney 

appeared via telephone.3 Gabler’s attorney informed the court that Gabler had 

been in outpatient treatment for his mental health issues, that he was taking 

medication, and that he had “stabilized.” The attorney described him as 

“competent and able to communicate” but acknowledged that “some other people 

involved in his life, they disagree with that at this time.” She asked the court to 

extend the TRO for six months. Gabler and Evelyn agreed to this arrangement. 

The court warned Gabler that “violations of [the TRO] would [be grounds for] a 

mandatory arrest,” to which Gabler responded, “[o]kay.” Later that day, the 

circuit court entered an amended TRO requiring Gabler to “cease or avoid the 

harassment of [Evelyn],” stay away from her residence, and “avoid contact that 

harasses or intimidates” her. 

 

3

 The same attorney represented Gabler in the injunction action and in this action 

through Gabler’s plea and sentencing.
No. 2022AP995-CR

4

¶6 On the following evening, April 30, 2020, Gabler went to Evelyn’s 

house and knocked on the front door. Evelyn’s father contacted the sheriff’s 

office. Gabler told the deputy who responded to the house that “he was aware that 

he had a restraining order prohibiting him from being at [Evelyn’s] residence or 

making contact with [her]” and that he was “[there] to take [Evelyn]’s virginity.” 

¶7 Gabler was arrested and taken to the Winnebago Mental Health 

Institute where he was detained emergently under WIS. STAT. ch. 51. In a letter 

dated May 4, 2020, Gabler’s attorney informed the circuit court that Gabler “[was] 

currently in a secure placement outside of Calumet County” and that because of 

“circumstances that [had] occurred since the [April 29] hearing,” she could not 

obtain Gabler’s signature on a form acknowledging that he had been served a copy 

of the amended TRO. The attorney advised that Evelyn “[would] need to proceed 

with having the necessary paperwork served on [Gabler].” Two days later, a 

deputy sheriff effected substituted service of the amended TRO and associated 

papers on Gabler by delivering them to a staff member at the Winnebago Mental 

Health Institute. 

¶8 Gabler was subsequently examined by two psychiatrists, each of 

whom concluded that Gabler met the criteria for continued involuntary 

commitment and medication under WIS. STAT. ch. 51—he was mentally ill, a 

proper candidate for treatment, and a danger to himself or others. 

¶9 On May 14, 2020, the circuit court held a hearing on Evelyn’s 

request for an injunction. Minutes from the hearing indicate that Gabler did not 

appear but that his attorney asked to proceed because Gabler “[was] not competent 

to proceed and could not understand what happens today.” After hearing 

testimony from Evelyn and her father, the court found “[r]easonable grounds to 
No. 2022AP995-CR

5

believe” that Gabler had engaged in harassing and intimidating behavior towards 

Evelyn and granted an injunction prohibiting him from engaging in any harassing 

or intimidating conduct towards her for four years. 

The Criminal Proceeding and Gabler’s Expungement Request

¶10 Following Gabler’s arrest on April 30, 2020, the State charged him 

with felony stalking and three misdemeanors—a violation of the TRO and two 

counts of disorderly conduct. On May 12, the circuit court ordered a competency 

examination. 

¶11 Eight days later, on May 20, 2020, the State filed a report prepared 

by Deborah L. Fischer, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist at the Winnebago Mental 

Health Institute, in which she diagnosed Gabler with “unspecified schizophrenia 

spectrum and other psychotic disorder.” In the report, Fischer wrote that Gabler 

had “exhibited several different fixed delusional beliefs” since the end of 

March 2020, “lack[ed] insight into his illegal and inappropriate behaviors and also 

exhibit[ed] poor judgment,” and “display[ed] a tangential and illogical thought 

process.” Based on her evaluation of Gabler, Fischer opined that he was not 

competent to proceed in the criminal case because he “lack[ed] substantial mental 

capacity to understand the proceedings and assist in his own defense.” See WIS.

STAT. § 971.13(1). The circuit court suspended proceedings in the criminal case 

and ordered Gabler to continue inpatient treatment at the Winnebago Mental 

Health Institute. 

¶12 In a subsequent report dated June 29, 2020, Fischer wrote that 

“[w]ith medication, Mr. Gabler has exhibited improvement in his depressive 

symptoms and is no longer experiencing delusions or hallucinations. His thought 

process is logical and linear, his judgment is improved, his insight is improving, 
No. 2022AP995-CR

6

and he is grounded in reality.” She diagnosed Gabler with “Major Depressive 

Disorder, early onset, with psychotic features,” “Generalized Anxiety Disorder,” 

and “Cannabis Use Disorder,” but opined that he was competent to proceed in his 

criminal case. 

¶13 The circuit court found Gabler to be competent and he ultimately 

agreed to plead no contest to the misdemeanors in exchange for the State’s 

agreement to have the felony count dismissed and read in at sentencing. On 

September 21, 2020, the circuit court accepted Gabler’s plea, withheld sentence, 

and imposed a two-year term of probation. The court also denied Gabler’s request 

that his convictions be expunged after the end of his probation term because he 

“ha[d] received the significant benefit of having the felony charge dismissed and 

read in, and ... there needs to be some information available to the public given 

the events that took place here.” Gabler’s attorney acknowledged “the Court’s 

desire that there be something on the record” but asked the court to reconsider, 

noting that “the restraining order ... will always show up on a background check,

... and that’s available for the public to see.” The court declined to do so because 

it perceived “a significant difference between just knowing that an order was 

entered at some point in the past and knowing that that order was violated.” 

¶14 After the plea and sentencing hearing, Gabler’s attorney filed a letter 

“to clarify” a reference the State had made to “schizophrenia ... manifest[ing] 

itself when a person is [Gabler]’s age.” The attorney wrote that Gabler’s “current 

diagnosis is major depressive disorder with psychotic features. He is not 

diagnosed with schizophrenia.” She asked that “[i]f this additional information 

would change the [circuit c]ourt’s opinion about granting expungement, ... the 

[c]ourt direct it to be noted on the Judgment of Conviction.” The court responded 
No. 2022AP995-CR

7

in a letter to Gabler’s attorney dated October 7, 2020, indicating that no change 

would be made:

The [c]ourt recognizes that Mr. Gabler’s mental health 

issues were a significant part of his case. The [c]ourt did 

not form its opinion denying expungement based upon any 

particular mental health diagnosis nor [the State’s] 

comments that your client may be suffering from 

schizophrenia. The [c]ourt’s concern was that while the 

public might have been able to ascertain that Mr. Gabler 

had an injunction ordered against him that information was 

not sufficient. The [c]ourt believes there is a vast 

difference between having an injunction ordered against an 

individual and knowing that the individual violated that 

injunction. For public safety reasons the [c]ourt believed it 

was important that that information be accessible. 

The Harassment Injunction is Vacated

¶15 In March 2021, Gabler moved, pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 806.07, to 

vacate the harassment injunction. After receiving no response from Evelyn, the 

circuit court issued an order in October 2021 granting the motion. The court made 

two findings in support of its decision. First, the court found that it “did not have 

competency to grant either the temporary restraining order or injunction ... 

because the original restraining order was improperly granted as [Evelyn] was a 

competent adult at the time her father pursued the petition on her behalf.” The 

court stated that the petition “did not comply with the statutory requirements of 

[WIS. STAT. §] 813.125” and should have been dismissed because Evelyn’s father 

had incorrectly identified her as a minor. Second, the court found that the 

injunction was invalid because “Gabler was not present at the injunction hearing,” 

and neither he nor his attorney could waive his appearance because he was 

committed civilly and “was indisputably incompetent” at that time. 
No. 2022AP995-CR

8

The Circuit Court Denies Gabler’s Postconviction Motion

¶16 In February 2022, Gabler filed a postconviction motion seeking to 

reopen his sentencing hearing on the issue of expungement. Citing State v. 

Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1, Gabler argued that 

because the circuit court had determined that the initial TRO should not have been 

entered against him and had vacated the harassment injunction, the court had 

“unknowingly considered inaccurate information about the nature of the supposed 

violation of the temporary restraining order and the level of culpability [Gabler] 

had in attempting contact with [Evelyn] on April 30, 2020” when it declined to 

order expungement at Gabler’s sentencing hearing. Gabler also asserted that his 

attorney in the injunction proceeding had rendered ineffective assistance in failing 

to request that the initial TRO be dismissed, a failure that led the court to deny 

expungement based on “its wrongly held belief that ... Gabler knowingly violated 

the temporary restraining order ... and that by doing so, created such a set of 

circumstances where the public would be harmed if they were denied access to 

this information.” 

¶17 The circuit court denied Gabler’s motion, explaining that its decision 

to not order expungement was based on the fact “that there was a temporary 

restraining order in place and that the order had been violated,” not whether 

Gabler had knowingly or unknowingly violated it. The court emphasized its belief 

that it “is important for the public to know, so that members of the public are ‘on 

notice’ and can take measures to protect themselves and others, ... that there was a 

temporary restraining order in place and that the order had been violated.” Gabler 

appeals.
No. 2022AP995-CR

9

DISCUSSION

¶18 WISCONSIN STAT. § 973.015(1m)(a)1. empowers circuit courts to 

expunge certain criminal convictions committed by persons under the age of 

twenty-five “if the court determines the [offender] will benefit and society will not 

be harmed by this disposition.” The statute enables a court to “provide a break to 

young offenders who demonstrate the ability to comply with the law” and “shield 

[them] from some of the harsh consequences of criminal convictions.” State v. 

Leitner, 2002 WI 77, ¶38, 253 Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341 (citation omitted). 

Whether to order expungement is reserved to the circuit court’s discretion, which 

means this court’s review is deferential. State v. Helmbrecht, 2017 WI App 5, ¶8, 

373 Wis. 2d 203, 891 N.W.2d 412 (2016). The circuit court must “set forth ... the 

facts it considered and the rationale underlying its decision.” Id., ¶12. This court 

will uphold a circuit court’s decision on expungement so long as “it relies on 

relevant facts in the record and applies a proper legal standard to reach a 

reasonable decision.” Id., ¶8 (quoting State v. Thiel, 2012 WI App 48, ¶6, 340 

Wis. 2d 654, 813 N.W.2d 709).

¶19 Gabler argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its 

discretion because it relied on inaccurate information in denying his request for 

expungement. He relies on a line of cases recognizing that a defendant has a 

constitutional right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information. See, e.g., 

Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741 (1948); Tiepelman, 291 Wis. 2d 179, ¶9. 

The State acknowledges that a court erroneously exercises its discretion if it denies 

expungement based on an error of fact. Gabler bears the burden of showing by 

clear and convincing evidence both that inaccurate information was before the 

court and that the court actually relied on it in the sentencing. See Tiepelman, 291 

Wis. 2d 179, ¶26; State v. Coffee, 2020 WI 1, ¶38, 389 Wis. 2d 627, 937 N.W.2d 
No. 2022AP995-CR

10

579. Whether Gabler was denied expungement in violation of his constitutional 

rights is a question this court reviews de novo. See Coffee, 389 Wis. 2d 627, ¶17.

¶20 Gabler argues first that the circuit court based its expungement 

decision on the incorrect premise that he violated the harassment injunction when 

in fact he pled no contest to violating the amended TRO. The record does not 

show that the court relied on inaccurate information. The court referred to Gabler 

having violated “an injunction” in its October 7, 2020 letter to Gabler’s counsel, 

which was dated several weeks after Gabler’s sentencing hearing. When the court 

sentenced Gabler, however, it did not refer to the injunction, but rather to an 

“order.” At the sentencing hearing, the court explained that it was denying 

Gabler’s request for expungement because it believed “there need[ed] to be some 

information available to the public given the events that took place here.” When 

Gabler’s counsel reminded the court that the restraining order would be “available 

for the public to see,” the court clarified that it believed the public needed to be 

aware Gabler had violated the order: “Well, I appreciate that that record is still 

out there, but there is a significant difference between just knowing that an order 

was entered at some point in the past and knowing that that order was violated.” 

The court twice referred to an “order” in its comments, clearly referring to the 

violation of the amended TRO for which Gabler was convicted and sentenced.

¶21 This court agrees with the State that the circuit court appears to have 

simply misdescribed the amended TRO as an “injunction” in its October 7 letter. 

That slip of the tongue is not enough to show that the circuit court was under the 

mistaken impression that Gabler had violated the harassment injunction when it

denied expungement. To the contrary, the circuit court’s specific references to an 

“order” in explaining its expungement decision confirm it did not deny Gabler’s 

request on the basis of inaccurate information.
No. 2022AP995-CR

11

¶22 Gabler next argues that he did not know the amended TRO had been 

issued when he went to Evelyn’s house on April 30, 2020, because he had not

been personally served with it and “was incompetent as a matter of law at the 

time” it was issued. On the latter point, Gabler notes the “substantial steps” his 

family took to get him mental health treatment in the weeks before he violated the 

amended TRO and the findings of two psychiatrists days after his arrest that he 

was mentally ill and should be involuntarily committed and medicated under WIS.

STAT. ch. 51. Gabler questions how expungement of his conviction for violating 

an order whose existence he was not aware of could be harmful to society. 

¶23 This argument is not sufficient to show that the circuit court actually 

relied on inaccurate information denying expungement. First, the record 

demonstrates Gabler knew about the amended TRO when he went to Evelyn’s 

house on April 30, 2020, even though he had not been personally served with it 

and was struggling with mental illness. The court entered the amended TRO 

following a hearing held on April 29, 2020. Gabler appeared telephonically at the 

hearing and, in response to questions from the court, acknowledged that he was 

willing to extend the terms of the initial TRO for six months and that he knew he 

would have to follow them. According to the criminal complaint, when the police 

spoke to Gabler outside Evelyn’s house the following evening, he “stated he was 

aware of the restraining order.”4

¶24 Gabler later pled no contest to, and was found guilty of, violating the 

amended TRO. During the plea colloquy, Gabler acknowledged that the State 

 

4

 At the plea hearing, Gabler’s attorney did not object when asked if the circuit court 

could use the facts alleged in the complaint as the basis for Gabler’s plea. 
No. 2022AP995-CR

12

would have to prove that he “knew that the temporary restraining order had been 

issued” and that his “actions were going to violate its terms.” He acknowledged 

that the court would find him guilty of violating the amended TRO if he pleaded 

no contest. The court found that Gabler “[understood] the nature of these 

proceedings and the effect of [his plea].” Gabler did not plead not guilty by reason 

of mental disease or defect and has not moved to withdraw his plea. In sum, 

Gabler has not established his claim of lack of knowledge by clear and convincing 

evidence.

¶25 In considering expungement, a circuit court must assess whether the 

defendant will benefit and whether society will be harmed. See WIS. STAT.

§ 973.015(1m)(a)1. In denying Gabler’s requests for expungement, the circuit 

court consistently cited harm to the public as the reason for its decision. In the 

circuit court’s view, society would be harmed if records reflecting Gabler’s 

violation of the amended TRO were expunged. Gabler challenges this reasoning 

by noting that records related to the amended TRO, Gabler’s violation of it, and 

the harassment injunction can be accessed through the Circuit Court Access 

Program (CCAP) website regardless of whether his conviction is expunged. 

Assuming the website has displayed and will indefinitely continue to display this 

information, the circuit court could nonetheless reasonably conclude that 

expungement would deprive the community of one way to learn that Gabler had 

violated the amended TRO. Its conclusion rests on the application of the correct 

law to the relevant facts and is one a reasonable judge could make. Thus, Gabler 

has not carried his burden of showing an erroneous exercise of discretion.
No. 2022AP995-CR

13

By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.