State ex rel. Renner v. Department of Health and Social Services, Correctional Division, 145
| Decision Date | 03 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 145,145 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. Lloyd RENNER, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES, CORRECTIONAL DIVISION, et al., Respondents. (1974). |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Briefs by: Howard B. Eisenberg, State Public Defender and Ruth S. Downs, Asst. State Public Defender, Madison, for appellant.
Brief by: Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and William L. Gansner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for respondents.
Renner, through his counsel, the State Public Defender, contends that the trial court erred in finding that the department's action was not arbitrary or capricious. The precise issues raised on appeal are: (1) Whether the department correctly found that the appellant's conduct constituted a violation of the conditions of parole; (2) whether the department was required to state reasons for revocation which evidenced the consideration of alternatives to a return to prison; and (3) whether the appellant, as a mandatory release parolee, was denied due process and equal protection when his good time credits were revoked without a hearing.
By letter dated January 6, 1976, the Assistant Public Defendant has informed this court that Renner was again released on parole on September 12, 1975, and is scheduled to be permanently discharged on February 7, 1976. The issue now is whether the questions presented on appeal are moot. This court, as a general rule, will not consider questions which have become moot due to a change in circumstances unless the question is one of great public importance. State v. Seymour (1964), 24 Wis.2d 258, 128 N.W.2d 680. Only the issue regarding the revocation of good time credits might be said to have considerable public importance and that question has already been resolved by this court. See: Putnam v. McCauley (1975), 70 Wis.2d 256, 234 N.W.2d 75.
The other questions presented have importance only as between the parties to the appeal.
The question of mootness must turn upon a determination as to whether this court, by ruling in favor of the appellant on the issues raised, might afford him some relief which he has not already achieved by his re-release on parole. This determination should be made without reference to the merits of the appellant's contentions on appeal. A decision by this court that the department's action was arbitrary and capricious would compel Renner's release on parole. He is now on parole and has been since September 12, 1975. However, the Assistant Public Defender, in her letter, argues that the questions are not moot '(s)ince revocation is a blot on any individual's record.' A decision by this court upon the issues raised will in no manner affect Renner's record of criminal convictions and sentences imposed. The relief sought by this appeal was release on parole. He has achieved that objective. The fact that his parole was revoked for a comparatively short period of time does not constitute such a 'blot' upon his record so as to require judicial intervention.
The basis for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Hauser v. Carballo
...33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972))." Friendly, Some Kind of Hearing, 123 U. of Pa.L.Rev. 1267, 1296 (1975).19 See State ex rel. Renner v. H. & S. S. Dept., 71 Wis.2d 112, 237 N.W.2d 699 (1976), in which we stated:"In this case, consistent with department practice prior to Putnam, supra, the appellant's......
-
Coleman v. Percy
...release on parole. State ex rel. Clarke v. Carballo, 83 Wis.2d 349, 356-57, 265 N.W.2d 285 (1978); State ex rel. Renner v. H. & S. S. Dept., 71 Wis.2d 112, 116-17, 237 N.W.2d 699 (1976). Citing sec. 801.50(9m), Stats., 8 as authority, the court of appeals held that, because review of the De......
-
State ex rel. Ellenburg v. Gagnon
...as to whether the committee ordered loss of three days good time or whether he ever lost it.2 See also, State ex rel. Renner v. H&SS Dept., 71 Wis.2d 112, 237 N.W.2d 699 (1976) (mootness); Putnam v. McCauley, 70 Wis.2d 256, 234 N.W.2d 75 (1975) (procedure for revoking good time).1 This cond......
-
State v. Shumate
...an issue of substantial public importance. See, State v. Seymour, 24 Wis.2d 258, 261, 128 N.W.2d 680 (1964); State ex rel. Renner v. H&HS Dept., 71 Wis.2d 112, 237 N.W.2d 699 (1976); In the Interest of V.L.H., 98 Wis.2d 430, 297 N.W.2d 23 (1980). We address ourselves to the underlying subst......