State v. Castillo
| Decision Date | 07 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1628,95-1628 |
| Citation | 570 N.W.2d 44,213 Wis.2d 488 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Petitioner, v. Heriberto CASTILLO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs and oral argument by Keith A. Findley of the University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison.
For the plaintiff-respondent-cross petitioner the cause was argued by Warren D. Weinstein, Assistant Attorney General, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, Attorney General.
Petitioner seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's order committing him as a sexually violent person pursuant to Wis. Stat ch. 980 (1993-94) 1 and remanding the case to allow him to withdraw his admission that he is a sexually violent person. After thorough review of the record and the briefs of the parties, and after having heard oral argument, we conclude this case does not present an adverse decision by the court of appeals as claimed by petitioner in his petition for review. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as improvidently granted.
¶2 We recognize that the parties have expended a great deal of time and effort in presenting this case; therefore, we will not dismiss the petition without explanation. See Hoskins v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 180 Wis.2d 534, 536, 509 N.W.2d 432 (1994) (Abrahamson, J., dissenting). A very brief rendition of the facts is therefore appropriate.
¶3 On March 29, 1990, Heriberto Castillo, Jr. (Castillo) was adjudged delinquent based on two counts of first degree sexual assault. Prior to his scheduled release from the juvenile correction facility, the State filed a petition under Wis. Stat. § 980.02(4)(a), requesting an order detaining Castillo as a sexually violent person. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, Castillo entered an admission that he was a sexually violent person, and the State agreed to recommend supervised community placement. The circuit court ordered Castillo placed in the community, in accordance with the statutory directive of placing such an individual in the least restrictive environment consistent with his needs. See Wis. Stat. § 980.06(2)(b).
¶4 Numerous barriers arose in an attempt to place Castillo in the community, generally arising from public unrest surrounding Castillo's status as a sexually violent person and the unavailability of a facility in which to place him. As a result, the circuit court granted the State's motion to reopen and modify the dispositional order. A hearing was subsequently held, at which time the State withdrew its original recommendation and recommended institutional placement. The circuit court revised its order and committed Castillo to the Wisconsin Resource Center.
¶5 Castillo appealed, arguing that Wis. Stat. ch. 980 is unconstitutional as applied because he was not afforded placement in the least restrictive environment, and that the circuit court erred in ordering institutional placement where the State was unwilling to commit sufficient resources to provide community placement. Alternatively, Castillo argued that the State was bound by its initial agreement to recommend community placement.
¶6 The court of appeals reversed the circuit court, concluding the admission agreement was akin to a plea agreement, and that the State violated Castillo's due process rights when it breached the agreement. The court of appeals determined specific performance could not be accomplished and, therefore, remanded the case to allow Castillo to withdraw his admission.
¶7 Castillo petitioned this court for review, arguing that the court of appeals' decision was adverse because it did not address whether Wis. Stat. ch. 980 is unconstitutional as applied, nor did it address the lack of resource allocation for community placement. Castillo contends that, although the court of appeals' decision was favorable to the extent it addressed the State's breach of the admission agreement, the outcome was adverse because his primary forms of relief were not considered, namely, whether the case should be dismissed or community placement ordered.
¶8 Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1), a party may petition this court "for review of an adverse decision of the court of appeals ..." In Neely v. State, 89 Wis.2d 755, 279 N.W.2d 255 (1979), this court addressed the issue of what constitutes a "decision" under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1). We held that "[t]he word decision, as used in the statutes and the rules, refers to the result (or disposition or mandate) reached by the court of appeals in the case." Neely, 89 Wis.2d at 758, 279 N.W.2d 255. A court's ultimate decision is separate from the court's opinion, however, and a party may not petition this court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sawyer v. Midelfort
...additional argument that the doctrine of laches is an equitable defense that may not be pled in claims of law. See State v. Castillo, 213 Wis.2d 488, 492, 570 N.W.2d 44 (1997) (an appellate court should decide cases on the narrowest possible ...
-
State v. Morford
...is dictum, and not binding on the court); Reiter v. Dyken, 95 Wis. 2d 461, 474, 290 N.W.2d 510 (1980) (same). 35. State v. Castillo, 213 Wis. 2d 488, 570 N.W.2d 44 (1997). 36. The Sprosty court did cite State v. Williams, 2001 WI App 155, 246 Wis. 2d 722, 631 N.W.2d 623, for the standard of......
-
State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz
...process. See State v. Castillo, 205 Wis.2d 599, 607, 556 N.W.2d 425 (Ct.App.1996), review dismissed as improvidently granted, 213 Wis.2d 488, 570 N.W.2d 44 (1997); State v. Bond, 139 Wis.2d 179, 188, 407 N.W.2d 277 ¶51 The party seeking to vacate a plea agreement must establish by clear and......
-
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wis. Dep't of Revenue
...administration,2 and, as such, it is not essential to draw on constitutional principles to overturn it. See State v. Castillo, 213 Wis.2d 488, 492, 570 N.W.2d 44 (1997) ("An appellate court should decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds."); Gabler v. Crime Victims Rights Bd., 2017 WI......