On Point: H. Ch. 980, SVPs

State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision
For Morford: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue/Holding:

¶41 The State urges us to hold that Wis. Stat. § 980.08(6m), not § 806.07(1)(h), applies and the State seeks relief from a chapter 980 committee’s status of supervised release when the committee has not yet been released on supervised release. The State asks this court to hold that the Department of Health and Family Services may petition for revocation of supervised release under Wis.

State v. Ervin Burris, 2004 WI 91, affirming 2002 WI App 262, 258 Wis. 2d. 454, 654 N.W.2d 866
For Burris: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue: Whether, on revocation of supervised release of a sexually violent person, § 980.06(2)(d) (1997-98),  the circuit “court must, for any reason, expressly consider alternatives to revocation before revoking supervised release when the court determines that the safety of others requires revocation,

State v. Steven J. Burgess, 2003 WI 71, affirming 2002 WI App 264, 258 Wis. 2d 548, 654 N.W.2d 81
For Burgess: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶33. Although persons committed under chapter 980 are similarly situated to those committed under chapter 51, there is a rational basis for the legislature’s distinction with respect to the confidentiality of proceedings under the two chapters.

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State v. Harris D. Byers, 2003 WI 86, reversing unpublished opinion of court of appeals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. Steven J. Burgess, 2003 WI 71, affirming 2002 WI App 264, 258 Wis. 2d 548, 654 N.W.2d 81
For Burgess: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶25. Burgess challenges his commitment based on the use of actuarial instruments in his chapter 980 commitment proceeding because they did not take into account his mental health. Consequently, Burgess contends that the instruments are irrelevant for chapter 980 proceedings because there must be a nexus between an offender’s mental disorder and the probability of committing sexually violent acts in the future.

State v. Steven J. Burgess, 2003 WI 71, affirming 2002 WI App 264, 258 Wis. 2d 548, 654 N.W.2d 81
For Burgess: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient, where the state’s expert conceded that respondent could conform his conduct to requirements of the law.

Holding:

¶29. Nevertheless, Burgess claims that the expert testimony presented at trial,

State ex rel. William E. Marberry v. Macht, 2003 WI 79, reversing 2002 WI App 133, 254 Wis. 2d 690, 648 N.W.2d 522; prior history omitted
For Marberry: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶19. As we have noted, Chapter 980 is a civil commitment statute with dual objectives: protection of the public and treatment of persons with dangerous mental disorders.

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

Issue/Holding: Barring introduction of the post-petition grant of sentence credit was proper: this evidence “would have been irrelevant to whether the State filed its petition within ninety days of Virlee’s release and would have confused the jury on this issue.” ¶19.

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.