State ex rel. Lyons v. Department of Health and Social Services
| Decision Date | 26 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-170,81-170 |
| Citation | 105 Wis.2d 146,312 N.W.2d 868 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. Robert LYONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, State of Wisconsin, Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Steven D. Phillips, Asst. State Public Defender, for petitioner-appellant.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and Kirbie Knutson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before VOSS, P. J., and BROWN and SCOTT, JJ.
Robert Lyons appeals from a judgment affirming the revocation of his probation. Lyons' principal argument is that a probationer's mental disease or defect should be recognized as a defense to a probation revocation.
After a trial to the court on the charge of carrying a concealed weapon, Lyons was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and committed to the Winnebago Mental Health Institute. He contends that this finding in the criminal court prevents the Department from proceeding with revocation of his probation. We disagree, and we affirm.
Lyons was convicted of burglary in violation of sec. 943.10(1), Stats., on September 24, 1976. Sentence was withheld, and Lyons was placed on four years' probation. One of the conditions of Lyons' probation was that he not possess a firearm. On December 19, 1979, a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee security guard discovered Lyons in the library carrying a loaded .357 Magnum handgun plus forty-two hollow point bullets. On April 16, 1980, Lyons appeared on the criminal charge and pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. After a trial to the court, Lyons was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and committed to the Winnebago Mental Health Institute.
On May 20, 1980, Lyons' final revocation hearing was held. Lyons admitted that he possessed the gun as charged. Lyons' probation agent testified at the hearing that Lyons was definitely in need of psychological treatment. He based his opinion on the psychiatric reports submitted in the criminal case and on consultation with a staff psychologist. He noted that if Lyons' probation were not revoked, he would be returned to community living within five months because his commitment was for nine months less credit for four months served. The agent further testified that he had discussed appropriate treatment for Lyons with his supervisor and the staff psychologist, and they concluded that the commitment as ordered by the court on the new charge would not be adequate treatment for Lyons.
The hearing examiner ordered revocation of Lyons' probation, and the Department affirmed the order on June 26, 1980. Lyons then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. The circuit court affirmed the revocation on August 28, 1980 because it found the Department had properly considered the criteria necessary for probation revocation. On November 3, 1980, Lyons was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on the original burglary charge. He was given credit for one hundred twenty days already served against the four year sentence. Judgment was entered on November 6, 1980.
Proceedings to revoke probation are not criminal proceedings. State ex rel. Hanson v. Department of Health and Social Services, 64 Wis.2d 367, 379, 219 N.W.2d 267, 274 (1974). The ultimate question in revocation proceedings is whether the probationer's rehabilitation can be successfully achieved outside prison walls or will be furthered by returning him to a closed society. State ex rel. Flowers v. Department of Health and Social Services, 81 Wis.2d 376, 385, 260 N.W.2d 727, 732 (1978). The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Flowers held that conduct of a parolee in an incident for which he was charged and acquitted may still constitute a ground for parole revocation. According to the court, the justification lies in the inherent difference between revocation proceedings for probation or parole and criminal convictions:
(W)e believe there is a considerable distinction between the liberty of a parolee and that of one who stands accused of a crime without a prior conviction. Legally, the parolee is in the constructive custody of the Department, subject to the forfeiture of his liberty for violation of the conditions of his parole.
....
The individual rights and the public purposes at stake in parole revocation are therefore distinct from those ordinarily associated with criminal punishment. The element of punishment in parole revocation is attributable to the crime for which the parolee was originally convicted and sentenced.
Id. at 386, 260 N.W.2d at 733 (citations omitted).
The court in Flowers described the nature of revocation proceedings:
In making (the revocation) determination, the Department is concerned not only with threats to the safety of the general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Horn
...N.W.2d 883 (1997); State ex rel. Hanson v. H & SS Dept., 64 Wis.2d 367, 379, 219 N.W.2d 267 (1974); State ex rel. Lyons v. H & SS Dept., 105 Wis.2d 146, 149, 312 N.W.2d 868 (Ct.App.1981). Rather, revocation is a civil proceeding. Vanderbeke, 210 Wis.2d at 513, 563 N.W.2d ¶26 Although a cour......
-
People v. Allegri
...501 F.2d 963, cert. denied (1975), 421 U.S. 1000, 95 S.Ct. 2399, 44 L.Ed.2d 668; State ex rel. Lyons v. Department of Health & Social Services (Wis.App.1981), 105 Wis.2d 146, 312 N.W.2d 868; People v. Breaux (1980), 101 Cal.App.3d 468, 161 Cal.Rptr. 653; People ex rel. Newcomb v. Metz (1978......
-
Aldrich v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n
...(Ct.App.1987); Crowall v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 118 Wis.2d 120, 125–26, 346 N.W.2d 327 (Ct.App.1984); State ex rel. Lyons v. DHSS, 105 Wis.2d 146, 150, 312 N.W.2d 868 (Ct.App.1981). 45. One of the Wisconsin cases cited above featured recurring, identical facts, like Sunnen. See State ex r......
-
People v. Allegri
...Pierce v. State Department of Social & Health Services (1982), 97 Wash.2d 552, 646 P.2d 1382; State ex rel. Lyons v. Department of Health & Social Services (1981), 105 Wis.2d 146, 312 N.W.2d 868; People v. Breaux (1980), 101 Cal.App.3d 468, 161 Cal.Rptr. 653; State v. O'Meal (1977), 116 Ari......