On Point: 3. Pretrial

State v. Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr. / State v. Price T. Hunt, 2011 WI App 61, affirmed 2012 WI 72 (recommended for publication); 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); affirmed, 2012 WI 72

SVP – Pre-Commitment Return to DOC Custody

¶1        … 

State ex rel Frederick Lee Pharm v. Bartow, 2007 WI 13, affirming 2005 WI App 215
For Pharm: Jon G. Furlow, Nia Enemuch-Trammell,Roisin H. Bell (Pro Bono)

Issue: Whether, following Pharm’s release in another state prison on life-time parole and his return here under the IAD to serve a Wisconsin sentence, he was subject to ch. 980 commitment proceedings on his release from that sentence.

State v. Jonathan Bell, 2006 WI App 30
For Bell: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue: Whether intervention of the local prosecutor to obtain a second DOC evaluation, which resulted in a referral for SVP commitment after the first DOC evaluation determined insufficient likelihood of reoffending, violated ch. 980 or due process.

Holding:

¶11      Our supreme court defined the scope of the district attorney’s authority in Byers.

State v. Tremaine Y., 2005 WI App 56, PFR filed 3/4/05
For Tremaine: Robert W. Peterson, Samantha Jeanne Humes, SPD, Milwaukee TrialI

Issue: Whether a ch. 980 petition is supported against a juvenile who was not placed in a secured correctional facility following the original adjudication on the qualifying sexually violent offense but was subsequently placed in such a facility as a result of additional offense.

State v. Steven J. Burgess, 2003 WI 71, affirming 2002 WI App 264; habeas relief denied, Steven J. Burgess v. Watters, 467 F.3d 676 (7th Cir 2006)
For Burgess: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether ch. 980 jurisdiction attaches to Native Americans who: are members of a tribe, residents of the tribe’s reservation, and commit the acts involved in the qualifying conviction on the reservation.

State v. Harris D. Byers, 2003 WI 86, reversing unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Byers: Jack E. Schairer & Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶26. A review of the placement of the provisions, together with the legislative history, reflects an intent to create a step-by-step process that must be followed before a district attorney has authority to file a petition.

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

Issue: Whether post-petition grant of jail credit deprived the court of competency to proceed, where the petition was filed within 90 days of the pre-grant release date, but would be untimely when calculated against the post-grant date.

Holding:

¶17. Virlee claims the court lost its competency to proceed with his commitment proceeding when it retroactively granted him sentence credit that placed his mandatory release date prior to the petition’s filing date.

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. Ronald G. Sorenson, 2002 WI 78, affirming as modified, 2001 WI App 251, 248 Wis. 2d 237, 635 N.W.2d 787
For Sorenson: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue: Whether, given the constitutional protections afforded Ch. 980 respondents, issue preclusion applies so as to prevent Sorenson from attacking the reliability of his qualifying conviction with evidence that the complainant subsequently recanted.

Holding:

¶22.

State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a 980 petition was barred because a prior petition was dismissed at trial for insufficient proof, but the respondent was subsequently returned to prison on a parole revocation for a violation not involving an act of sexual violence.
Holding:

¶22. Although Parrish’s preclusion argument presents an issue of first impression in Wisconsin,