On Point blog, page 1 of 3
SCOW clarifies law regarding substitution of judges in civil cases
State v. Tavodess Matthews, 2021 WI 42, reversing a published court of appeals opinion, 2020 WI App 33, 5/14/21, case activity (including briefs)
Section 801.58(1) allows a party to a civil case to request a new judge if, among other things, he files a written substitution request before “the hearing of any preliminary contested matter.” Matthews’ case concerns a substitution request made after the circuit court granted a motion to adjourn a Chapter 980 probable cause hearing regarding sexually violent persons. But since Chapter 980 commitments are civil proceedings, this unanimous SCOW opinion, which reverses a published court of appeals’ opinion, is an important clarification of the law governing all civil cases.
Important 980 defense win: SCOW holds DOC must turn over data on (low) statewide recidivism rate
State v. Anthony James Jendusa, 2021 WI 24, affirming a court of appeals order denying interlocutory appeal; case activity (including briefs)
This litigation has been procedurally weird, as we’ve discussed before, but SCOW’s decision on the merits may turn out to be a momentous one for the future of ch. 980.
SCOW to review meaning of “preliminary contested matter” under civil judicial substitution statute
State v. Tavodess Matthews, 2018AP2142, petition to review a published court of appeals decision granted 8/26/20; case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented:
Is an adjourned probable cause hearing under ch. 980 a “preliminary contested matter” that terminates litigants’ opportunity to request judicial substitution?
SCOW: Precedent? What precedent? ¯_(ヅ)_/¯
State v. Anthony James Jendusa, 2018AP2357-CRLV, review of a decision of the court of appeals denying the state’s petition for leave to appeal; case activity
Before turning to the issues presented, we’ll start with an observation about how this case might seem to affect appellate litigation in all kinds of cases, civil and criminal.
Miscalculated release date didn’t invalidate ch. 980 petition
State v. Kenneth William Jaworski, 2016AP5, District 1, 4/18/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state filed a ch. 980 commitment petition against Jaworski shortly before the mandatory release (MR) date the Department of Corrections had calculated for him. But DOC later realized it had miscalculated Jaworski’s MR date, which was actually about two months earlier than the date the petition was filed. DOC’s miscalculation (whether negligent or, as Jaworski argues, made in “bad faith”) doesn’t mean the petition was untimely because a ch. 980 petition may be filed anytime before the person is released or discharged from his predicate sexual offense sentences.
Ch. 980 petition is timely as long as it’s filed before the person’s release or discharge from sentence
State v. Hershel R. Stanley, 2014 WI App 89; case activity
Even if DOC was required to release Stanley from prison on his presumptive mandatory release date instead of holding him to his maximum discharge date, the ch. 980 petition filed against him before his discharge date was timely because § 980.02(1m) permits filing a ch. 980 petition before a person is released or discharged from his sentence.
SCOW: Reversal of predicate sexually violent offense doesn’t require dismissal of pending ch. 980 petition
State v. Joseph J. Spaeth, 2014 WI 71, 7/16/14, on certification from the court of appeals, and reversing the circuit court’s dismissal order; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity
A necessary predicate of a commitment under ch. 980 is a conviction for a sexually violent offense. This case raises an unusual issue regarding predicate convictions: Can the state continue to prosecute a ch. 980 proceeding if the predicate conviction that was alleged in the petition is vacated and dismissed after the petition is filed? The supreme court answers “yes,” holding that the sufficiency of a ch. 980 petition is to be assessed as of the time it is filed, and at the time the petition in this case was filed there was a valid conviction for the predicate offense.
State v. Joseph J. Spaeth, 2012AP2170, certification granted 11/26/13
On review of court of appeals certification; case activity
Issue (from the certification)
Wisconsin Stat. § 980.02(1m) and (2) require that a commitment petition be filed “before the person is released or discharged” and allege that a person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense. Does § 980.02 additionally require that the commitment petition be filed before the person is released or discharged from a sentence that was imposed for the same sexually violent offense that is alleged in the petition as the predicate offense,
State v. Joseph J. Spaeth, 2012AP2170, District 2, 7/31/13
Court of Appeals certification, review granted 11/26/13; case activity
Issue certified:
Wisconsin Stat. § 980.02(1m) and (2) require that a commitment petition be filed “before the person is released or discharged” and allege that a person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense. Does § 980.02 additionally require that the commitment petition be filed before the person is released or discharged from a sentence that was imposed for the same sexually violent offense that is alleged in the petition as the predicate offense,
State v. Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr. / State v. Price T. Hunt, 2011 WI App 61, review granted 8/31/11
on review of published decision; for Gilbert: William J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Hunt: Eric James Van Schyndle, Leah Stoecker, Allison E. Cimpl-Wiemer; case activity (Gilbert), case activity (Hunt)
SVP – Pre-Commitment Return to DOC Custody
Issues (Composed by On Point):
- Whether the State may bring a Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitment petition to judgment when the respondent is in the exclusive custody of the Department of Corrections,