On Point: 6. Post-disposition

State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811
For Thayer: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether the lateness of counsel’s appointment, six days before the paper review probable cause hearing, violated due process.

Holding: Construing Thayer’s argument to raise a contention that due to lateness of the appointment, counsel “had insufficient time to prepare for the probable cause hearing,”

State v. Daniel Williams, 2001 WI App 155
For Williams: Adrienne M. Moore, SPD, Racine Trial
Issue: Whether the grant of a petition for supervised release (§ 980.08) can be vacated on the basis of a periodic re-examination report (§ 980.07) which is a mere assessment of the same information utilized during the supervised release proceeding.
Holding: A motion for relief from judgment, § 980.07, may be based on newly discovered evidence,

State v. Keith Alan VanBronkhorst, 2001 WI App 190
For VanBronkhorst: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether revocation of supervised release from a ch. 980 commitment was properly based on an uncharged rule violation.

Holding:

¶9 … “(P)rocedural due process protections afforded in probation or parole revocation proceedings apply to supervised release revocation proceedings under ch. 980. “…¶15. Notice to comply with due process requirements must be given sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings so that a defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to prepare.

State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811
For Thayer: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether the commitment subject has a right to present an independent medical report at a petition for discharge probable cause hearing, § 980.09(2)(a).

Holding:  Although a Ch. 980 patient does have the right submit an independent medical report to the court, ¶¶6-13, Wis Stat..

State v. Anthony D.B., 2000 WI 94, ¶11, 237 Wis. 2d 1, 614 N.W.2d 435
For Anthony D.B.: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether a circuit court has authority, on a Ch. 980 commitment, to order involuntary medication.

Holding: “Because those individuals committed under ch. 980 are defined as ‘patients’ in Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1), we hold that the statutory provision in § 51.61(1)(g),

Edwin C. West v. Macht, 2000 WI App 134, 237 Wis. 2d 265, 614 N.W.2d 34

Issue: Whether living unit reassignment of a Ch. 980 subject was made in retaliation for his exercise of his constitutional right to petition on grievances.

Holding: A commitment subject has a protected interest against being punished for exercising first amendment rights, ¶15; however, those rights may be validly restricted if “reasonably related to legitimate therapeutic and institutional interests.”

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 227 Wis.2d 316, 595 N.W.2d 692 (1999), afffirming and remanding 221 Wis.2d 401, 585 N.W.2d 637 (Ct. App. 1998).
For Sprosty: T. Christopher Kelley, Thomas, Kelly, Habermehl & Mays.

Issue/Holding:

¶3 We conclude that a circuit court, in its discretion, may consider the availability of facilities to house or to treat a sexual predator under Wis. Stat. § 980.08(4). However,

State v. Reuven Seibert, 220 Wis. 2d 308, 582 N.W.2d 745 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Seibert: Jane Krueger Smith

Issue/Holding: “(W)hether the proceeding is one under the initial ch. 980 commitment or a later petition for supervised release under § 980.08, there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that the State prove the person is treatable.”