State v. Byers
| Decision Date | 03 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-2441, No. 00-0454. |
| Parties | IN RE the COMMITMENT OF Harris D. BYERS: STATE of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Harris D. BYERS, Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the respondent-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Jack E. Schairer and Jefren E. Olsen, assistant state public defenders, and oral argument by Jefren E. Olsen.
For the petitioner-respondent there was a brief and oral argument by Kevin C. Greene, Brown County Assistant District Attorney.
¶ 1.
The petitioner, Harris Byers, seeks review of a decision of the court of appeals1 affirming a judgment and order committing him pursuant to Wis. Stat. Chapter 980 (1997-98) to a secure mental health facility as a sexually violent person.2 Byers asserts that a district attorney lacks authority to file a Chapter 980 petition unless the agency with jurisdiction has first requested the filing of a petition and the Department of Justice (DOJ) has declined. We agree and conclude that a request from the agency with jurisdiction and a subsequent decision by the DOJ not to file are prerequisites to a district attorney's authority to file a Chapter 980 petition. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals and remand the matter to the circuit court for dismissal of the petition.
¶ 2. Prior to Byers' release on parole in January of 1995, the Department of Corrections (DOC) evaluated Byers to determine his status under the sexually violent person commitment provisions of Chapter 980, Wisconsin Statutes. The doctor who performed the evaluation concluded that Byers did not meet the criteria for referral under Chapter 980. Another evaluation, conducted by a second doctor, took place in August of 1998 after Byers was revoked from parole and shortly before his scheduled release date. This evaluation also concluded that Byers was not eligible for commitment. Consequently, the DOC did not request that a Chapter 980 petition be filed against Byers.
¶ 3. The DOC notified the Brown County district attorney that Byers intended to reside in Brown County after his release. The Brown County district attorney arranged for an independent evaluation of Byers by Dr. Raymond M. Wood. Dr. Wood opined that Byers met the criteria for a Chapter 980 proceeding. Based on this determination and the fact that Byers had been convicted for a "sexually violent offense," the Brown County district attorney concluded that Byers came within Chapter 980's definition of "sexually violent person."3 The district attorney filed a Chapter 980 petition against Byers prior to his release date and requested a jury trial.
¶ 4. Byers moved to dismiss the petition claiming that the Brown County district attorney did not have the authority to file the Chapter 980 petition without the DOC requesting that such a petition be filed. He argued that the statutory scheme contemplated that the district attorney would not have authority unless the agency with jurisdiction requested the DOJ to file a petition and the DOJ declined to do so ¶ 5. The circuit court concluded that the Brown County district attorney could file the petition even though there was no DOC request and subsequent decision by the DOJ declining to file. It noted that while the authority of the DOJ to file a Chapter 980 petition is conditioned upon a request from the agency with jurisdiction, there is no such condition on the authority of a district attorney.
¶ 6. Byers filed an interlocutory appeal contesting the circuit court's interpretation. The court of appeals denied review.
¶ 7. A jury trial commenced on the issue of whether Byers was a sexually violent person. On the second day of the trial, Byers agreed that he would admit that he was a sexually violent person in exchange for the district attorney's agreement not to oppose his request for conditional release.
¶ 8. At the dispositional hearing, the State did not oppose Byers' request for conditional release, but it also did not join the request. The court determined that institutional care was appropriate and ordered Byers committed to the Wisconsin Resource Center.
¶ 9. Byers appealed the circuit court's judgment and order for commitment. The court of appeals granted Byers' motion requesting remand to the circuit court for a hearing on the effectiveness of his trial counsel. He then filed a post-commitment motion with the circuit court asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective in connection with preserving for appeal the issue of the district attorney's authority. Based on testimony presented, the circuit court found that Byers' trial counsel advised him that this issue would be preserved despite Byers' admission and waiver of rights. The circuit court also found that Byers relied on this advice and that he would not have made the admission if he had not been so advised.
¶ 10. The circuit court further found that the advice of the trial counsel was erroneous because, at the very least, the law is unclear regarding whether Byers could pursue the issue on appeal. Nevertheless, the circuit court concluded that Byers did not suffer any prejudice by the erroneous advice because it was satisfied that, even if the issue had been preserved, Byers would not have prevailed. The circuit court noted that § 980.02(1) was "poorly worded" but concluded that Byers would not have prevailed because the statute did not limit the authority of the district attorney to cases where the agency with jurisdiction has first made a request of the DOJ. The circuit court therefore denied Byers' post-commitment motion and Byers appealed this decision.
¶ 11. The court of appeals consolidated the appeals and addressed the issue of the Brown County district attorney's authority. It concluded that § 980.02(1) did not prevent the district attorney from filing the Chapter 980 petition against Byers. The court then rejected Byers' claims of ineffectiveness of counsel and the absence of a knowing and voluntary plea. It reasoned that these claims were based on Byers' ability to obtain appellate review of the issue of the district attorney's authority and the court of appeals had now addressed the issue. Accordingly, his ineffectiveness of counsel claim failed because there was no prejudice and his knowing and voluntary plea claim failed because any error was harmless since the court of appeals addressed the issue he sought to preserve. Therefore, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment and orders of the circuit court.
[1]
¶ 12. This case provides us with an opportunity to examine the limits of a district attorney's authority to file a petition alleging that a person is subject to involuntary commitment under Chapter 980 as a sexually violent person. Specifically, we must resolve whether, under Wis. Stat. § 980.02(1), a district attorney may file a Chapter 980 petition only if the agency with jurisdiction has first requested the filing of a petition and the DOJ has declined to file.4 The resolution of this issue is a matter of statutory interpretation which presents a question of law subject to independent appellate review. State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 405-06, 565 N.W.2d 506 (1997).
[2]
¶ 13. The goal of statutory interpretation is to discern the intent of the legislature. Id. at 406. We first analyze the language of Wis. Stat. § 980.02(1) to determine whether the legislature intended that a district attorney have authority to file only if the DOJ has declined to do so following a request by the agency with jurisdiction. We next examine the statute's legislative history, its purpose, and the policy reasons supporting the conclusion that the legislature intended to create a significant gatekeeper role for the agency with jurisdiction. Finally, based on our analysis, we determine that the intent of the legislature in enacting § 980.02(1) was to require that there be a request of the agency with jurisdiction followed by a DOJ decision not to file before a district attorney has authority to file a Chapter 980 petition.
[3]
¶ 14. Chapter 980 creates an involuntary civil commitment procedure that is intended primarily to provide treatment for sexually violent persons and to protect the public. State v. Carpenter, 197 Wis. 2d 252, 258-259, 541 N.W.2d 105 (1995). Under Chapter 980, when a person who may meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person is nearing release from confinement, the agency that will release the person (the "agency with jurisdiction")5 is required to notify the DOJ and the appropriate district attorneys.6 The appropriate district attorneys are the district attorney for the county in which the proceeding occurred that resulted in the person's confinement and the district attorney of the county in which the person will reside upon release. In re Commitment of Goodson, 199 Wis. 2d 426, 437, 544 N.W.2d 611 (Ct. App. 1996).
¶ 15. The notice from the agency with jurisdiction must contain specified information including the person's offense history and documentation regarding any treatment.7 The notice must be sent as soon as possible beginning three months prior to the person's release.
¶ 16. Under § 980.02(1), the authority to file a Chapter 980 petition is limited to the DOJ and the appropriate district attorneys. The language of § 980.02(1) provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of A Privately Filed Criminal Complaint, 2004 WI 58 (WI 5/25/2004)
...2d 1, 672 N.W.2d 709; State v. Cole, 2003 WI 59, ¶25, 262 Wis. 2d 167, 663 N.W.2d 700. 3. As I have written previously, see In re Commitment of Byers, 2003 WI 86, ¶48, 263 Wis. 2d 113, 665 N.W.2d 729 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring), this court has consistently and resolutely held that the pu......
-
State v. Davison
...see Fox v. Catholic Knights Ins. Soc'y, 2003 WI 87, 263 Wis. 2d 208, 665 N.W.2d 181; State v. Byers, 2003 WI 86, 263 Wis. 2d 113; 665 N.W.2d 729 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring; Crooks, J., dissenting); Bruno v. Milwaukee County, 2003 WI 28, 260 Wis. 2d 633, 660 N.W.2d 656; State v. Delaney, ......
-
Hailey Marie-Joe Force v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...2006 WI 14, ¶ 31, 288 Wis.2d 358, 709 N.W.2d 418; VanCleve v. City of Marinette, 2003 WI 2, ¶ 6, 258 Wis.2d 80, 655 N.W.2d 113; State v. Byers, 2003 WI 86, ¶¶ 22–27, 263 Wis.2d 113, 665 N.W.2d 729; Hughes v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 197 Wis.2d 973, 980–84, 542 N.W.2d 148 (1996). 20.Cogger v. ......
-
Legue v. City of Racine & Amy L. Matsen
...2006 WI 14, ¶ 31, 288 Wis.2d 358, 709 N.W.2d 418; VanCleve v. City of Marinette, 2003 WI 2, ¶ 6, 258 Wis.2d 80, 655 N.W.2d 113; State v. Byers, 2003 WI 86, ¶ ¶ 22–27, 263 Wis.2d 113, 665 N.W.2d 729; Hughes v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 197 Wis.2d 973, 980–84, 542 N.W.2d 148 (1996). 37.City of M......