On Point: 6. Post-disposition

State v. Bradley M. Jones, 2013 WI App 151; case activity

¶1        …. Wisconsin Stat. § 980.07 (2011-12) mandates annual reexamination of persons committed to secure treatment facilities as sexually violent persons. Following the Department of Health Services’ annual reexamination, Bradley M. Jones requested and was denied appointment of an independent examiner and counsel prior to review of his petition for discharge. Under the applicable statutes,

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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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. Dennis R. Thiel, 2012 WI App 48 (recommended for publication); for Thiel: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

SVP (Ch. 980) Supervised Release – Challenge to Conditions: Ripeness 

Thiel’s challenge to 2 conditions of his supervised release from a ch. 980 commitment are ripe for review (the conditions relate to possible detention in a correctional facility and administration of polygraphs):

¶7        The State argues that Thiel’s claims are not ripe for review because no circumstances have arisen where Rules 13 and 16 were sought to be enforced.  

State v. Edwin Clarence West, 2011 WI 83, affirming unpublished opinion; for West: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity [Companion case: State v. Nordberg, 2011 WI 84 (same result, controlled by West).]

Someone under ch. 980 commitment as a sexually violent person bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the criteria for granting supervised release under § 980.08(4)(cg),

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. 

on bypass petition; for Nordberg: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issue:

Whether someone under ch. 980 commitment as a sexually violent person bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the criteria for granting supervised release under § 980.08(4).

The court of appeals held, in State v. Rachel, 2010 WI App 60, 324 Wis. 2d 465, 782 N.W.2d 443,

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,