On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

State v. Thomas H. Bush (II), 2004 WI App 193, reversed in part, 2005 WI 103
For Bush: Robert G. LeBell

Issue: Whether Bush, on appeal from denial of petition for release from SVP commitment, § 980.09(2), is procedurally barred from challenging the constitutionality of his underlying commitment because he could have raised such challenge in a prior appeal.

Holding:

¶13.

Amy Z. v. Jon T., 2004 WI App 73
For Jon T.: Geoffrey Dowse

Issue/Holding:

¶18. We conclude that the circuit court had the authority to order child support in the context of the Wis. Stat. ch. 880 proceeding. We do so in light of the constitutional grant of broad plenary power to the circuit courts coupled with the petition requirements under Wis. Stat. § 880.07,

State v. Richard A. Devore, 2004 WI App 87, PFR filed 4/21/04
For Devore: Catherine M. Canright

Issue/Holding: 

¶1 Richard Devore appeals an order denying his motion to be transferred to Minnesota under the Interstate Compact on Mental Health, WIS. STAT. § 51.75. He contends the circuit court erred when it concluded that, as a matter of law, § 51.75 did not apply to individuals found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI) in accord with WIS.

State v. Joseph A. Lombard, 2004 WI App 52, PFR filed 3/19/04
For Lombard: David Karpe

Issue: Whether, in response to a jury question during deliberations in this SVP discharge trial, the trial court was obligated to instruct that if Lombard were discharged he would still be subject to 40 years of probation / parole supervision on the underlying offense.

Holding:

¶13.

State v. Dennis R. Thiel, 2004 WI App 140, PFR filed 7/16/04
For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian

Issue: Whether an examiner’s recommendation of supervised release established probable cause that Thiel was no longer a sexually violent person and therefore supported a full evidentiary hearing on release, pursuant to § 980.09(2).

Holding:

¶15. Thiel’s claim falls under Wis. Stat. § 980.09(2), which sets forth the procedural posture for a committed individual’s petition for discharge without the approval of the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

State v. Dennis R. Thiel, 2004 WI App 140, PFR filed 7/16/04
For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian

Issue/Holding:

¶27. We now turn to the second issue on appeal-that being, whether Thiel’s due process rights were violated because the circuit court failed to initiate proceedings following remand by this court and therefore nothing occurred until Thiel initiated proceedings by writing to the court nearly ten months later.

State v. Jesse J. Madison, 2004 WI App 46, PFR filed 3/12/04
For Madison: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶5. Alternatively, Madison argues that he has a constitutional right, on equal protections grounds, to a special verdict. See Wis. Const. art. I, § 1. This equal protection argument stems from an alleged disparate application of special verdicts, under Wis. Stat. § 805.12(1),

State v. Jesse J. Madison, 2004 WI App 46, PFR filed 3/12/04For Madison: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶3. Madison first claims that he has a statutory right to a special verdict under Wis. Stat.§ 805.12(1). See State v. Rachel, 224 Wis. 2d 571, 575, 591 N.W.2d 920 (Ct. App.

State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision
For Morford: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue/Holding:

¶41 The State urges us to hold that Wis. Stat. § 980.08(6m), not § 806.07(1)(h), applies and the State seeks relief from a chapter 980 committee’s status of supervised release when the committee has not yet been released on supervised release. The State asks this court to hold that the Department of Health and Family Services may petition for revocation of supervised release under Wis.

State v. Ervin Burris, 2004 WI 91, affirming 2002 WI App 262, 258 Wis. 2d. 454, 654 N.W.2d 866
For Burris: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue: Whether, on revocation of supervised release of a sexually violent person, § 980.06(2)(d) (1997-98),  the circuit “court must, for any reason, expressly consider alternatives to revocation before revoking supervised release when the court determines that the safety of others requires revocation,