With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in those cases violated the ex post facto clause. As noted, that language has been withdrawn, and is not the proper test to use in this ex post facto analysis. See Collins, 497 U.S. at 50; State v. Thiel, 188 Wis. 2d 695, 702-03, 524 N.W.2d 641 (1994)(withdrawing Mueller's language that ex post facto test reviews whether new law "disadvantages" a defendant). ¶ 244. It is also worth noting that the punishment for Singh's crime — a class H felony — has not changed. It was six years with up to a maximum of three years' confinement plus up to a $10,000 fine in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. 2011 Wis. Act 38 did not change the punishment annexed to the crime Singh committed at the time he committed it. See State ex rel. Britt v. Gamble, 2002 WI App 238, ¶ 24, 257 Wis. 2d 689, 653 N.W.2d 143 (<HOLDING>). The 2011 law did not change the punishment

A: holding that subsequently repealing the law in existence at the time the crime was committed that gave defendant the opportunity to ask for early release was not ex post facto because the sentence imposed was not extended
B: holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause
C: holding no ex post facto violation because enhancement provision was already on the books when the defendant committed the 1985 firearm offense
D: holding that the ex post facto clause did not apply because the civil contempt citation was not punitive
A.