Jessen v. State

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
• Writing for the Court: HANSEN
• Citation: 95 Wis.2d 207,290 N.W.2d 685
• Decision Date: 01 April 1980
• Parties: William G. JESSEN, Plaintiff in Error-Petitioner, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error-Respondent. 78-054 Cr.

Page 685

290 N.W.2d 685 95 Wis.2d 207 William G. JESSEN, Plaintiff in Error-Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error-Respondent. 78-054 Cr. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Argued March 5, 1980.
Decided April 1, 1980.

Page 686

[95 Wis.2d 208] Howard B. Eisenberg, State Public Defender, for plaintiff in error-petitioner.

David J. Becker, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., on brief, for defendant in error-respondent.

HANSEN, Justice.

This case comes before us on a petition to review a decision of the court of appeals, issued on December 19, 1978, summarily affirming an order of the circuit court for Juneau county, ROBERT [95 Wis.2d 209] F. PFIFFNER, Circuit Judge, denying the defendant's motion for postconviction relief pursuant to sec. 974.06, Stats.

Plaintiff in error-petitioner William G. Jessen (hereinafter defendant), the former chief deputy sheriff of Juneau county, was convicted of twenty-six counts of misconduct in public office (falsification of uniform traffic citations), contrary to sec. 946.12(4), Stats., following a jury trial. The trial court denied the defendant's postconviction motion, finding that he was not a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court and therefore could not bring a motion under sec. 974.06. The court also ruled that the record conclusively showed that he was not entitled to any relief. The court of appeals affirmed on the ground that the defendant was not entitled to relief under sec. 974.06 because he was not in custody under sentence of a court. The court of appeals also held that persons no longer in custody are not foreclosed from a remedy, but that the proper remedy is a writ of error coram nobis. However, the court declined to consider whether the defendant was entitled to such relief under the factual allegations made by him, since the case was not on appeal from the refusal of the trial court to issue a writ of error coram nobis. We affirm.

The facts show that, following his conviction on June 5, 1973, the defendant was sentenced to a term not to exceed one year in the state prison on each of the twenty-six counts of misconduct in public office, such sentences to run concurrently. Execution of the sentence was stayed, and the defendant was placed on probation for a period of two years. On May 15, 1975, he was discharged from probation, effective June 5, 1975.

On June 2, 1978, the defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief under sec. 974.06, Stats., on the grounds that he had been denied due process of law as a result of the unconstitutional suppression of evidence by [95 Wis.2d 210] the state. The documents in support of the motion indicate that on April 11, 1973, the trial court ordered the state to disclose and make available to the defendant exculpatory evidence which may have been obtained through an investigation by the office of the attorney general into the activities of the Juneau county sheriff's department "including but not limited to evidence concerning missing bond money, misplaced bond money, lack of adequate security of custodial places, and mishandling of evidence." On or about May 9, 1978, counsel for the defendant learned that the Wisconsin Department of Justice had information in its files which revealed that the former sheriff of Juneau county had "failed to hold an annual auction of items left at the sheriff's department for over one year and that he had kept a watch in his possession from a burglary." Such evidence was never made available to the defendant prior to trial.

The record also indicates that at the time the 974.06 motion was filed, the defendant was Chief of Police of the Village of Lyndon Station, Wisconsin, and the Law Enforcement Standards Board of the State of Wisconsin had begun an action for an alternative writ of mandamus against the Village of Lyndon Station seeking removal of the defendant from office because of his conviction for twenty-six counts of misconduct

Page 687

in public office. The defendant brought the postconviction motion in an attempt to have his conviction vacated and a new trial ordered so that there would no longer be any cause for removing him.

Sec. 974.06, Stats., in the portion pertinent to this review, provides:

"974.06 Post-conviction procedure. (1) After the time for appeal or post-conviction remedy provided in s. 974.02 has expired, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the U.S. constitution or the constitution or laws of this [95 Wis.2d 211] state, that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the...