On Point: b. Discharge procedure

State v. Shawn David Schulpius, 2012 WI App 134; court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); case activity

SVP Discharge Hearing – Showing Required, § 980.09(2) 

Before granting discharge hearing on a ch. 980 petition, the circuit court must satisfy itself that the petition answers two concerns: First, under § 980.09(1) “paper-review” determination, the petition alleges sufficient facts to show that the petitioner no longer satisfies commitment criteria.

State v. Kenneth Roberts, 2012AP266, District 3, 10/11/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Discharge hearing wasn’t required on petition, where the sole expert opinion affirmed a high risk of recividism based on “dynamic” factors, notwithstanding that revised actuarial scoring methodology yielded a lower risk for “static” factors. State v. Arends, 2010 WI 46, 325 Wis. 2d 1,

State v. Charles M. Ermers, Jr., 2011 WI App 113 (recommended for publication); for Ermers: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

A ch. 980 discharge hearing requires that the petitioner allege “facts from which the court or jury may conclude the person’s condition has changed since the date of his or her initial commitment order so that the person does not meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person,” 

State v. Herbert O. Richard, 2011 WI App 66 (recommended for publication); for Richard: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Changes in the scoring of the actuarial test which was used to support Richard’s commitment at his original trial, cannot support his discharge petition even though his new score would reduce his predicted likelihood of reoffending.

¶13      Richard argues that the circuit court improperly dismissed his petition for discharge and that he is entitled to a discharge hearing. 

State v. Eric James Hendrickson, 2010AP1181, District 3/4, 3/10/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hendrickson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Under State v. Laxton, 2002 WI 82, 254 Wis. 2d 185, 647 N.W.2d 784, proof of a mental disorder implicitly proves requisite risk of sexually violent recidivism (“serious difficulty” controlling behavior). Therefore, “direct evidence” of such difficulty,

State v. Kenneth R. Parrish, 2010AP809, District 1, 2/15/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Parrish: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity; Parrish BiC; State Resp.; Reply

SVP – Petition for Discharge – Request for Independent Examiner

Parrish’s failure to unequivocally request appointment of an independent examiner dooms his argument on appeal that the trial court “prematurely dismissed his petition for discharge (§ 980.09) without first appointing an examiner,

State v. Walter Allison, Jr., 2010 WI App 103; for Allison: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Summary judgment in favor of discharge isn’t an available option under § 980.09.

¶18 Applying the principles governing statutory interpretation to Wis. Stat. § 980.09, it is clear that the legislature explicitly prescribed a different procedure from those outlined in Wis.

State v. Daniel Arends, 2010 WI 46, affirming as modified, 2008 WI App 184; for Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Procedure clarified for handling discharge petitions under recently amended § 908.09 :

¶3   We conclude that § 980.09 requires the circuit court to follow a two-step process in determining whether to hold a discharge hearing.

¶4   Under § 980.09(1),

State v. Daniel Arends, 2008 WI App 184, PFR granted 2/10/09
For Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue: Whether § 980.09 (2005-06) grants the circuit court a greater “gatekeeper role” than the prior statute in ordering an evidentiary hearing on a discharge petition.

Holding: 

¶22      The State’s premise that the new statute grants the circuit court a greater role than it played in a probable cause determination runs contrary to the development of the law.

State v. Daniel Arends, 2008 WI App 184, PFR granted 2/10/09
For Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶14      Unlike the previous statutory provision, the current Wis. Stat. § 980.09 does not distinguish between petitions made with or without the approval of the DHFS secretary. Furthermore, a discharge petition no longer automatically triggers a probable cause hearing. Rather, the circuit court may review the petition without a hearing,