State v. Gilbert (In re Gilbert)

• Decision Date: 29 June 2012
• Docket Number: Nos. 2010AP594,2010AP1155.,s. 2010AP594
• Citation: 816 N.W.2d 215,342 Wis.2d 82,2012 WI 72
• Parties: In re the COMMITMENT OF Carl Cornelius GILBERT, Jr.: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr., Respondent–Appellant–Petitioner. In re the commitment of Price T. HUNT: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Price T. Hunt, Respondent–Appellant–Petitioner.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

342 Wis.2d 82
816 N.W.2d 215
2012 WI 72

In re the COMMITMENT OF Carl Cornelius GILBERT, Jr.:
State of Wisconsin, Petitioner–Respondent,
v.
Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr., Respondent–Appellant–Petitioner.
In re the commitment of Price T. HUNT:
State of Wisconsin, Petitioner–Respondent,
v.
Price T. Hunt, Respondent–Appellant–Petitioner.

Nos. 2010AP594, 2010AP1155.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Argued Jan. 10, 2012.
Decided June 29, 2012.

[816 N.W.2d 217]

In case 2010AP594: For the respondent-appellant-petitioner there were briefs filed by Ellen Henak, and Hannah B. Schieber, assistant state public defenders and oral argument by Hannah B. Schieber.

For the petitioner-respondent the cause was argued by Warren D. Weinstein, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was J.B. Van Hollen.

In case 2010AP1155: For the respondent-appellant-petitioner there were briefs filed by Michael J. Gonring, Leah Stoecker, Eric J. Van Schyndle, Allison E. Cimpl–Wiemer, Quarles and Brady, LLP, Milwaukee and oral argument by Eric J. Van Schyndle.

For the petitioner-respondent the cause was argued by Warren D. Weinstein, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was J.B. Van Hollen.

MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J.

[342 Wis.2d 86]¶ 1 We review a published decision of the court of appeals ¹ affirming orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County, Jeffrey A. Wagner and Jeffrey A. Conen, Judges.²

¶ 2 We are asked to decide whether Wisconsin Statutes chapter 980 (2005–06) ³ requires the dismissal of a pending commitment petition when the individual subject to the petition is re-incarcerated because of the revocation of parole or extended supervision. We hold that the State may proceed with a ch. 980 commitment after the revocation of a subject individual's parole or extended supervision. Based on that holding, we conclude that both of the ch. 980 commitments at issue in this case are valid, and therefore affirm the court of appeals.

[342 Wis.2d 87]I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 3 The facts of these cases are undisputed and we will address the facts of Gilbert and Hunt's (“Petitioners”) cases in turn.

A. Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr.

¶ 4 Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr. (“Gilbert”) was convicted of second-degree sexual assault and was sentenced to ten years in prison.⁴ On December 4, 2006, while Gilbert was still in the custody of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), the State filed a petition seeking his commitment pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 980.02. The same day, the circuit court reviewed the petition, found probable cause to believe Gilbert was eligible for commitment, and

[816 N.W.2d 218]

ordered Gilbert detained by the DOC and transferred to a facility approved by the Department of Health Services (“DHS”). A day later, the DOC released Gilbert on parole and transferred him to the Wisconsin Resource Center (“WRC”) in Winnebago, Wisconsin, which is maintained and operated by DHS.

¶ 5 Less than ten days after being transferred to WRC, Gilbert violated the conditions of his parole. Consequently, the DOC placed a “hold” on his parole, and on January 19, 2007, he was transferred to the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (“MSDF”), which is maintained and operated by the DOC. While the issue of determination of Gilbert's parole revocation was pending, a hearing was held on March 22, 2007, where the circuit court found probable cause to believe that Gilbert was a “sexually violent person” within the meaning of Wis. Stat. ch. 980 and ordered him transferred[342 Wis.2d 88]for evaluation to the WRC “or such other authorized institution as may be determined by the [DHS].” However, on August 8, 2007, Gilbert's parole was revoked, and he was re-incarcerated, this time at Dodge Correctional Institution, which is maintained and operated by the DOC.

¶ 6 On October 17, 2007, DOC granted Gilbert parole a second time and transferred him back to WRC, pending resolution of the Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitment petition filed on December 4, 2006. On November 25, 2007, Gilbert violated the terms of his second parole. As a result, he was re-incarcerated at the MSDF pending his revocation hearing, and his parole was revoked on December 28, 2007.

¶ 7 On February 4, 2008, Gilbert's ch. 980 commitment trial began. After a three-day trial, the jury found him to be a “sexually violent person” within the meaning of § 980.01(1). Following the trial, the circuit court entered a commitment order pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 980.06. He was not, however, sent back to WRC or to any other DHS facility, but rather was transferred by the DOC to Waupun Correctional Institution to serve the balance of his sentence that resulted from the December 28, 2007, revocation. He then served out the remainder of the sentence resulting from his second revocation in the custody of the DOC. In accordance with the condition of this period of incarceration, Gilbert was transferred to the custody of the DHS.

¶ 8 On January 15, 2009, while in the custody of the DHS, Gilbert brought a post-conviction motion in which he asserted that his December 28, 2007 parole revocation required dismissal of the ch. 980 petition. On December 17, 2009, the circuit court held a motion hearing, and on February 18, 2010, the circuit court [342 Wis.2d 89]issued an oral ruling denying the motion. Gilbert appealed this motion to the court of appeals.

B. Price T. Hunt

¶ 9 Price T. Hunt (“Hunt”) was convicted of third-degree sexual assault ⁵ and misdemeanor battery. Hunt was sentenced to a term of incarceration of ten years, consisting of five years initial confinement and five years extended supervision. His expected release date from incarceration to extended supervision was September 4, 2007.

¶ 10 On August 23, 2007, the State filed a Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitment petition, seeking Hunt's commitment as a sexually violent person. On the same day that the State filed the petition, the circuit court found there was probable cause to believe that Hunt met the statutory criteria for a ch. 980 commitment. The court ordered

[816 N.W.2d 219]

Hunt transferred to a detention facility approved by the DHS pending the resolution of the ch. 980 commitment petition. In compliance with this order, Hunt was transferred to the WRC (and DHS custody) when he was released to extended supervision in September of 2007. On October 16, 2007, the circuit court found probable cause to believe that Hunt was a “sexually violent person” within the meaning of § 980.01(1).

¶ 11 While in the custody of the DHS, and while his commitment trial was pending, Hunt violated the terms of his extended supervision. His extended supervision was subsequently revoked on May 29, 2008. About a month after the revocation of Hunt's extended supervision, but before his re-incarceration, he moved [342 Wis.2d 90]to dismiss the commitment petition, or in the alternative, to be transferred to “an approved DHS facility.” Following the filing of this motion, but prior to the hearing on it, the circuit court ordered Hunt re-confined for two years, and Hunt was transferred to the Racine Correctional Institution. A hearing on the motion was held on September 29, 2008, after which the circuit court denied both Hunt's motion to dismiss and the request to be transferred.

¶ 12 Hunt's commitment case was tried in July of 2009, and the circuit court found him to be a sexually violent person and ordered commitment.

¶ 13 On May 7, 2010, Hunt appealed the order denying his motion to dismiss and the judgment and commitment order. The court of appeals consolidated Gilbert and Hunt's appeals. See State v. Gilbert, 2011 WI App 61, 333 Wis.2d 157, 798 N.W.2d 889. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court and held that dismissal of a Wis. Stat. ch. 980 proceeding is not required when the subject of the petition is transferred to the custody of the DOC before a ch. 980 commitment order is entered. Id., ¶ 1. Hunt remained at the Racine Correctional Institution in the custody of the DOC until March 30, 2010—the scheduled conclusion of his sentence—when he was transferred to the WRC, where he is currently confined. Gilbert and Hunt petitioned for review from this court, which we granted.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 14 We are required to construe Wis. Stat. ch. 980. This is a matter of statutory interpretation, and therefore a question of law that the court reviews de novo. [342 Wis.2d 91]Noffke ex rel. Swenson v. Bakke, 2009 WI 10, ¶ 9, 315 Wis.2d 350, 760 N.W.2d 156. We interpret statutes independently, but benefit from both our prior analyses and that of prior courts. State v. Henley, 2010 WI 97, ¶ 29, 328 Wis.2d 544, 787 N.W.2d 350.

III. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

¶ 15 Statutory interpretation “begin[s] with the language of the statute, because it is the language that expresses the legislature's intent.” Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, 2010 WI 59, ¶ 18, 326 Wis.2d 155, 785 N.W.2d 398 (citing State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶¶ 44–45, 271 Wis.2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110). Moreover, “[w]e attempt, whenever possible, to give reasonable effect to every word, avoiding both surplusage and absurd or unreasonable results.” Id., ¶ 18 (citing Kalal, 271 Wis.2d 633, ¶ 46, 681 N.W.2d 110).

¶ 16 In addition to the plain language of the statute, “scope, context, and purpose are perfectly relevant to a plain-meaning interpretation of an unambiguous statute.” Kalal, 271 Wis.2d 633, ¶ 48, 681 N.W.2d 110. Further, “[a] review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.”

[816 N.W.2d 220]

Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis.2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581. Accordingly, we examine the language, context, purpose, and history of Wis. Stat. ch. 980 while undertaking our analysis.

IV. DISCUSSION

¶ 17 Although the facts of the Petitioners' cases are different, they present the court with a single issue for review: Whether Wis. Stat. ch. 980 requires the dismissal of a pending commitment petition when the individual subject to the petition is incarcerated because [342...