In re the Commitment of Carl Cornelius Gilbert, s. 2010AP594
| Citation | 333 Wis.2d 157,798 N.W.2d 889,2011 WI App 61 |
| Decision Date | 12 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | 2010AP1155.,Nos. 2010AP594,s. 2010AP594 |
| Parties | In re the COMMITMENT OF Carl Cornelius GILBERT, Jr.State of Wisconsin, Petitioner–Respondent,v.Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr., Respondent–Appellant.†In re the commitment of Price T. Hunt.State of Wisconsin, Petitioner–Respondent,v.Price T. Hunt, Respondent–Appellant.† |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: Jeffrey A. Wagner and Jeffrey A. Conen, Judges.1 Affirmed.On behalf of the respondent-appellant Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr., the cause was submitted on the briefs of William J. Tyroler, assistant state public defender of Milwaukee.
On behalf of the petitioner-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general and Warren D. Weinstein, assistant attorney general.On behalf of the respondent-appellant Price T. Hunt, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Michael J. Gonring, Leah Stoecker, Eric J. Van Schyndle and Allison E. Cimpl–Wiemer of Quarles & Brady LLP of Milwaukee.On behalf of the petitioner-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general and Warren D. Weinstein, assistant attorney general.Before CURLEY, P.J., FINE and KESSLER, JJ.KESSLER, J.
Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr. and Price T. Hunt appeal orders of commitment pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 980.06 2 entered against each of them, and Gilbert also appeals denial of his Wis. Stat. § 809.30 postconviction motion. These appeals have been consolidated because they raise the same issue, which is one of first impression. Both appellants argue that dismissal of a Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitment proceeding is required when the subject of the petition is placed in a facility operated by the Department of Corrections (DOC) before a commitment order is made, and is therefore transferred to DOC custody, rather than being transferred immediately to the custody of the Department of Health Services (DHS),3 as required by Wis. Stat. §§ 980.06 and 980.065. Because we conclude that §§ 980.06 and 980.065, when construed in the context of ch. 980 as a whole, permit a commitment order in the circumstances that occurred here, we affirm.
¶ 2 The facts in the two cases vary slightly, but are set forth separately for completeness. However, we see no difference between the underlying facts material to the issue raised here.
¶ 3 Gilbert was in prison because of sequential convictions, one of which was for a predicate offense under Wis. Stat. ch. 980.4 On December 4, 2006, before Gilbert's mandatory release on the predicate offense, the State filed a petition seeking his commitment under ch. 980 (2005–06). That same day, the circuit court reviewed the petition as required by Wis. Stat. § 980.04(1) (2005–06), found probable cause, and ordered Gilbert detained by the DOC and transferred “to a detention facility approved by the [DHS].”
¶ 4 Gilbert was placed on parole the next day by the DOC and transferred to the Wisconsin Resource Center.5 After a hearing on March 22, 2007, 6 the court found probable cause to believe Gilbert was sexually violent and ordered him transferred for evaluation to the Wisconsin Resource Center “or such other authorized institution as may be determined by the [DHS].”
While detained for evaluation, Gilbert violated his parole. He was formally revoked and returned to the custody of the DOC. Subsequently, Gilbert was again released on parole. Gilbert violated this parole and was again revoked. Gilbert was again returned to the custody of the DOC. Gilbert was placed at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility on November 29, 2007 for the remainder of the Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitment proceeding. On February 7, 2008, a jury found that Gilbert was a sexually violent person, and the court ordered him committed to the DHS “for control, care and treatment until such time as [he] is no longer a sexually violent person.” The court also ordered commitment “to institutional care in a secure mental health facility.”
¶ 6 Gilbert brought a postconviction motion in which he asserted that the commitment proceeding became moot when his parole was revoked because the relief the State sought—his commitment to the custody of the DHS pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 980.06 and 980.065—was not possible because he was in the custody of the DOC. Thus, Gilbert concludes, the petition should have been dismissed. The circuit court denied the motion and Gilbert appeals.7
¶ 7 Hunt was convicted of two offenses in 2003, one of which was a predicate offense under Wis. Stat. § 980.01(6)(b) (2003–04). Hunt was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment, comprised of five years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision for the predicate offense, and to a concurrent nine-month term on the other offense. Before his September 4, 2007 release from prison on extended supervision, the State filed a petition for his commitment under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 (2007–08). Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 980.04(1) (2007–08), the circuit court found there was probable cause to believe that Hunt was eligible for a ch. 980 commitment. Under § 980.04(1) (2007–08), the court ordered Hunt transferred to a detention facility approved by the DHS and ordered a probable cause hearing.
¶ 8 Hunt was transferred to DHS custody at the Wisconsin Resource Center when he was released to extended supervision by the DOC. Thereafter, on October 16, 2007, the circuit court conducted the probable cause hearing, and found probable cause to believe that Hunt was a sexually violent person within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 980.01(1) (2007–08). The circuit court ordered Hunt transferred to the Wisconsin Resource Center for evaluation as required by § 980.04(3) (2007–08).
¶ 9 While in the custody of the DHS, and while the State's Wis. Stat. ch. 980 petition was pending, Hunt was disruptive, violent and abusive towards a staff member at the Wisconsin Resource Center. On May 29, 2008, an administrative law judge revoked Hunt's extended supervision and on August 21, 2008, the circuit court ordered Hunt reconfined to prison for two years. Hunt's presumptive release date was on or about August 21, 2010. Hunt was transferred to the Racine Correctional Institution.
¶ 10 Hunt moved to dismiss the commitment petition or, in the alternative, to be transferred to “an approved DHS facility.” The circuit court denied both the motion to dismiss and the request to be transferred. Hunt remained at the Racine Correctional Institution during the remaining steps in the commitment proceedings. After a trial to the court during his reconfinement period, Hunt was found to be a sexually violent person and was ordered committed. The court explained that under the commitment order, Hunt was to be transferred to a DHS facility after completing his reconfinement period.8 Hunt appeals.
¶ 11 Both Gilbert and Hunt argue that the State's Wis. Stat. ch. 980 petitions should have been dismissed because Gilbert's and Hunt's return to DOC custody eliminated the possibility of placing them in immediate DHS custody, as required by Wis. Stat. § 980.06. They both also argue that once they were returned to DOC custody, their commitment proceedings became moot because the orders would have no practical effect, as neither Gilbert nor Hunt could be subject to the immediate and exclusive confinement of the DHS. Therefore, the question to be decided is whether ch. 980 requires dismissal of a pending commitment petition when the person who is the subject of the petition is incarcerated because of a new sentence or a parole/extended supervision revocation. Because we conclude that various provisions of ch. 980 illustrate the legislature's intent that commitment proceedings can occur while the subject of the proceedings is incarcerated, we affirm.9
¶ 12 Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271 Wis.2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. “[S]tatutory language is interpreted in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.” Id., ¶ 46. The purpose of statutory interpretation is to give the statute its “full, proper, and intended effect.” Id., ¶ 44. Village of Cross Plains v. Haanstad, 2006 WI 16, ¶ 9, 288 Wis.2d 573, 709 N.W.2d 447 (). We review independently the application of the statutes to undisputed facts. See State ex rel. Rupinski v. Smith, 2007 WI App 4, ¶ 13, 297 Wis.2d 749, 728 N.W.2d 1. This “requires us to engage in statutory interpretation which we also review independently.” Id. We independently determine whether a matter is moot. See PRN Assocs. LLC v. DOA, 2009 WI 53, ¶ 25, 317 Wis.2d 656, 766 N.W.2d 559.
¶ 13 The specific provisions in Wis. Stat. ch. 980 that the appellants primarily rely upon are Wis. Stat. §§ 980.06 and 980.065, which describe the ultimate order for commitment. Wisconsin Stat. § 980.06 provides:
If a court or jury determines that the person who is the subject of a petition under s. 980.02 is a sexually violent person, the court shall order the person to be committed to the custody of the department for control, care and treatment until such time as the person is no longer a sexually violent person. A commitment order under this section shall specify that the person be placed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gilbert (In re Gilbert)
...the judgment and commitment order. The court of appeals consolidated Gilbert and Hunt's appeals. See State v. Gilbert, 2011 WI App 61, 333 Wis.2d 157, 798 N.W.2d 889. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court and held that dismissal of a Wis. Stat. ch. 980 proceeding is not required w......
-
Gilbert v. McCulloch
...appellate court affirmed, finding Gilbert's commitment authorized by the Wisconsin statutory scheme. In re Commitment of Gilbert, 333 Wis.2d 157, 798 N.W.2d 889, 891 (App.2011) (“Gilbert I ”). The court concluded that Gilbert's arguments relied on statutory interpretation and did not raise ......
-
Gilbert v. McCullough, 13-3460
...appellate court affirmed, finding Gilbert's commitment authorized by the Wisconsin statutory scheme. In re Commitment of Gilbert, 798 N.W.2d 889, 891 (Wis. App. Ct. 2011) ("Gilbert I"). The court concluded that Gilbert's arguments relied on statutory interpretation and did not raise any dev......