On Point: 3. Pretrial

State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195
For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue: Whether the state’s petition was timely, where the respondent had already completed his sentence on the qualifying conviction but was serving concurrent sentences with the controlling sentence a non-qualifying conviction.

Holding: State v. Keith, 216 Wis. 2d 61, 573 N.W.2d 888 (Ct. App. 1997) (petition timely filed where respondent serving consecutive sentences) extended to concurrent sentences:

¶17. 

State v. Aaron K. Gibbs, 2001 WI App 83, 242 Wis. 2d 640, 625 N.W.2d 666
For Gibbs: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a delinquency adjudication under former Wis. Stat. Ch. 48 (1993-94) supports a Ch. 980 petition.

Holding:

¶7 The question is whether in 1997 the circuit court had the authority under the 1997-98 version of WIS.

State v. Eric Pletz, 2000 WI App 221, 239 Wis.2d 49, 619 N.W.2d 97
For Pletz: Michael J. Backes

Issue: Whether the state’s pretrial failure to disclose that its witness used the RRASOR screening instrument to evaluate Pletz violated his discovery rights.

Holding: Pletz waived any discovery objection by not promptly objecting, given that he was provided this information before the witness testified. ¶26. Moreover,

State v. Frederick L. Pharm, 2000 WI App 167, 238 Wis. 2d 97, 617 N.W.2d 163
For Pharm: Jack E. Schairer

Issue: Whether conviction under the since-repealed statute of indecent behavior with a child may serve as a predicate offense for a Ch. 980 commitment.

Holding: “(T)he legislature clearly intended to include, within the definition of ‘sexually violent offense,’ the conduct prohibited under a previous version of a statute enumerated in Wis.

State v. John J. Watson, 227 Wis.2d 167, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999), reversing unpublished decision
For Watson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Holding: For fact-specific reasons, the state established probable cause to proceed with this 980 case; bindover is established by more than reliance on inadmissible hearsay.

State v. Tory L. Rachel, 224 Wis.2d 571, 591 N.W.2d 920 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Rachel: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding:

Tory L. Rachel appeals a nonfinal order of the trial court ruling that the findings and conclusions of a court-appointed expert are subject to discovery in a ch. 980, STATS., proceeding. Because the rules of civil procedure, chs. 801 to 847,

State v. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the probable cause hearing was held within 72 hours of filing of the Ch. 980 petition, as required by § 980.04(2).

Holding: The trial court’s finding that the hearing was held within 72 hours of filing, exclusive of the weekend, is not clearly erroneous.