State v. Morford

• Decision Date: 03 February 2004
• Docket Number: No. 01-2461.,01-2461.
• Citation: State v. Morford, 2004 WI 5, 268 Wis. 2d 300, 674 N.W.2d 349 (Wis. 2004)
• Parties: IN RE the COMMITMENT OF William L. MORFORD: STATE of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Respondent, v. William L. MORFORD, Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

268 Wis.2d 300

2004 WI 5

674 N.W.2d 349

IN RE the COMMITMENT OF William L. MORFORD:

STATE of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Respondent, v.William L. MORFORD, Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner.

No. 01-2461.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oral argument September 9, 2003.

Decided February 3, 2004.

For the respondent-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Lynn E. Hackbarth and Law Offices of Lynn Ellen Hackbarth, Milwaukee, and oral argument by Lynn E. Hackbarth.

For the petitioner-respondent the cause was argued by Warren D. Weinstein, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager,attorney general.

¶ 1.SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.

This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals¹ affirming orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee County, Daniel L. Konkol, Judge.The circuit court granted the district attorney's motion to reconsider its decision placing William L. Morford on supervised release and denied William L. Morford's motion for reconsideration.The circuit court concluded that Morford was still a sexually violent person and that it was still substantially probable that he would engage in acts of sexual violence if not placed in institutional care.The circuit court therefore granted the State relief from Morford's supervised release and ordered Morford committed to the custody of the Department of Health and Family Services(the department) for control, care, and treatment in an institutional setting.

¶ 2.Morford then moved the circuit court to reconsider its order of institutionalization for several reasons, including that the circuit court used statutorily improper proceedings to give the State relief from his supervised release.The circuit court denied Morford's motion, and Morford appealed from this order of denial.

¶ 3.The court of appeals affirmed the order of the circuit court, concluding that Wis. Stat. § (Rule)806.07(1)(h)(1999-2000)² governs reconsideration of the circuit court's original decision to place Morford on supervised release and that the requirements of § 806.07(1)(h) were satisfied.

¶ 4.The sole issue we address in this case is whether Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1)(h) or 980.08(6m) is the vehicle for changing the supervised release status of an individual who, like Morford, has been determined to be appropriate for supervised release but who remains institutionalized awaiting placement.³

¶ 5.We hold that Wis. Stat. § 980.08(6m), rather than § 806.07(1)(h), governs granting relief to the State from a chapter 980 committee's supervised release when the committee is confined in an institution awaiting placement on supervised release.Any language or inference in State v. Castillo,205 Wis. 2d 599, 556 N.W.2d 425(Ct. App.1996),State v. Williams,2001 WI App 155, 246 Wis. 2d 722, 631 N.W.2d 623, or State v. Sprosty,2001 WI App 231, ¶ 16, 248 Wis. 2d 480, 636 N.W.2d 213, limiting the application of § 980.08(6m) to a chapter 980 committee who has actually been released under supervised release into the community is withdrawn.

I

¶ 6.Morford is now on supervised release, and the issues he raised in order to obtain his supervised release are moot.A determination of these issues will have no practical effect on Morford.⁴

¶ 7.Reviewing courts generally decline to decide moot issues but may do so under certain circumstances.This court has held that it may decide an otherwise moot issue if it: (1) is of great public importance; (2) occurs so frequently that a definitive decision is necessary to guide circuit courts; (3) is likely to arise again and a decision of the court would alleviate uncertainty; or (4) will likely be repeated, but evades appellate review because the appellate review process cannot be completed or even undertaken in time to have a practical effect on the parties.⁵

¶ 8.We conclude that the sole issue proposed to be addressed, that is, the appropriate mechanism for changing the supervised release status of a chapter 980 committee who has been determined to be appropriate for supervised release but who remains institutionalized and awaiting placement, satisfies several exceptions to the mootness rule.

¶ 9.The release of a chapter 980 committee is an issue of great public importance because it implicates both the safety of the public and the rights of the detained individual.

¶ 10.The issue presented recurs with some frequency.This is the fourth time since 1996, in a published case, that the appropriate procedure for reconsidering a chapter 980 committee's supervised release has arisen, and a decision from this court will provide guidance to the circuit courts.

¶ 11.This issue is likely to arise again and may evade review.The time between a circuit court's determination that a person is eligible for supervised release and the person's being placed on supervised release may be substantial, as in the present case.⁶Indeed, the statute contemplates a time lag between a circuit court's finding a person eligible for supervised release and the actual placement on supervised release.The Department of Health and Family Services prepares a plan for supervised release that the circuit court must review and approve.⁷Furthermore, while a chapter 980 committee litigates a denial of supervised relief, he or she may in the interim—as occurred in this case—be placed on supervised release, making the cases moot and tending to evade review.¶ 12.We conclude that the issue raised by this case that we address satisfies exceptions to the mootness rule, and we therefore address it.

II

¶ 13.This case is procedurally convoluted, and we set forth an abbreviated version of the facts relevant to render a decision on the sole issue we address.

¶ 14.On July 31, 1997, Morford was committed as a sexually violent person under Wis. Stat. chapter 980.Pursuant to the language of Wis. Stat. § 980.06(2)(a)(1)(1993-94)⁸ at the time of his commitment, the circuit court determined that he be placed on supervised release.Because no halfway house was available, Morford remained at the Wisconsin Resource Center (WRC), a secure facility.Morford appealed, arguing that he was entitled to be held in a less restrictive facility.The court of appeals agreed and directed the circuit court to oversee the search for an appropriate placement.

¶ 15.While the Department of Health and Family Services searched for a supervised release placement for Morford the circuit court repeatedly reviewed the status of the search, and Morford's case came up for two periodic reviews.The medical and psychological reports submitted during these periodic reviews suggested that Morford might not be appropriate for supervised release.

¶ 16.At a March 15, 2000, proceeding on the supervised release plan, the circuit court expressed concern that Morford was not an appropriate candidate for supervised release.¶ 17.On May 4, 2000, the district attorney filed a document entitled "motion for reconsideration of supervised release."The motion cited no statutory authority as a basis for the motion.

¶ 18.The circuit court held evidentiary proceedings on the district attorney's motion on March 8, May 7, and May 8, 2001, and heard testimony from experts who evaluated Morford's suitability for supervised release.At the close of the proceedings, the circuit court granted the district attorney's motion for reconsideration.Although the circuit court never used the words "revocation of supervised release," the effect of the circuit court's order was to revoke Morford's supervised release.Morford sought reconsideration of the circuit court's order.The court of appeals affirmed the orders of the circuit court granting the district attorney's motion and denying Morford's motion for reconsideration.

III

¶ 19.The question whether Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1)(h) or 980.08(6m) is the vehicle for changing the supervised release status of a chapter 980 committee who has not yet been released requires interpretation of two statutes, Wis. Stat. §§ 806.07(1)(h)and980.08(6m).The interpretation of statutes is a question of law that this court decides independently of the circuit court and court of appeals, but benefiting from the analysis of both.⁹

¶ 20.To decide the issue presented, we examine both Wis. Stat. § 806.07(1)(h)and980.08(6m), as well as three cases of the court of appeals that have touched upon the interplay between these two statutes.

¶ 21.Our goal in interpreting statutes is to discern and give effect to the intent of the legislature.¹⁰Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute.Each word should be looked at so as not to render any portion of the statute superfluous.¹¹But "courts must not look at a single, isolated sentence or portion of a sentence" instead of the relevant language of the entire statute.¹²Furthermore, a statutory provision must be read in the context of the whole statute to avoid an unreasonable or absurd interpretation.¹³Statutes relating to the same subject matter should be read together and harmonized when possible.¹⁴A cardinal rule in interpreting statutes is to favor an interpretation that will fulfill the purpose of a statute over an interpretation that defeats the manifest objective of an act.¹⁵Thus a court must ascertain the legislative intent from the language of the statute in relation to its context, history, scope, and objective, including the consequences of alternative interpretations.¹⁶

IV

¶ 22.We first consider the language of the statutes in question.Section 806.07(1)(h), which is part of chapter 806 entitled "Civil Procedure—Judgment," provides for relief from a judgment or order for any reasons justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.¹⁷Section 806.07 applies to all civil actions and special proceedings, "except where different procedure is prescribed by statute or rule."¹⁸A chapter 980 proceeding is a civil action¹⁹ and § 806.07 may, by its terms, apply to a chapter 980...