On Point: c. Due process/vagueness

State v. Scott R. Nelson, 2007 WI App 2, PFR filed 1/22/07
For Nelson: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding:

¶15      … Even under the “more likely than not” standard, there must be a strong nexus between the person’s mental disorder and that person’s level of dangerousness. Under this standard, the likelihood that the person will engage in an act of sexual violence is more than 50%. 

State v. Terry L. Olson, 2006 WI App 32, PFR filed 3/16
For Olson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether ch. 980 is unconstitutional because the SVP definition of “dangerousness” is not linked to imminent risk.

Holding:

¶5       We deem Olson’s reliance on Lessard misplaced. In 2002, our own supreme court considered a challenge to Wis.

State v. Shawn Virlee, 2003 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/3/03
For Virlee: Jack E. Schairer

Issue: Whether ch. 980 violates due process and/or equal protection because it doesn’t allow for pretrial release.

Holding:

¶14. We decline to address Virlee’s due process and equal protection arguments because he fails to establish, and we do not see, how the statute’s lack of a provision for pretrial release affects the trial court’s judgment.

State v. John Lee Laxton, 2002 WI 82, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision
(Affirmed on habeas review, John L. Laxton v. Bartow, 421 F.3d 565 (7th Cir 2005))
For Laxton: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether ch. 980 is unconstitutional by failing to adequately narrow the class of commitment subjects to those with serious difficulty controlling dangerous behavior.

State v. Isaac H. Williams, State v. Willie Hogan, 2001 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/23/01
For Williams: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
For Hogan: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the § 980.08(1) requirement that the SVP wait 18 months after initial commitment before petitioning for supervised release violates substantive due process.

Holding:

¶7.

State v. Ronald Ransdell, 2001 WI App 202, PFR filed 8/27/01
For Ransdell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the automatic initial commitment to institutional care provision, § 980.06, on its face violates substantive due process.

Holding: A person challenging the constitutionality of a statute must show its infirmity beyond reasonable doubt; a statute restricting liberty implicates a “strict-scrutiny” test. ¶5. Applying this test, § 980.06 does not violate due process: requiring that a commitment subject first undergo evaluation and treatment in an institutional setting before a decision is made as to supervised release is a reasonable legislative policy determination;

Reuben Adams v. Bartow, 330 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2003), denying habeas relief in State v. Adams, 223 Wis. 2d 60, 588 N.W.2d 336 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Adams: Samuel Arena (Foley & Lardner)

Issue: Whether the state court affirmance of Adams’ commitment unreasonably applied Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) or Foucha v.