By: dmc-admin//October 1, 2001//
By: dmc-admin//October 1, 2001//
Larry Sprosty was committed to the Wisconsin Resource Center as a sexually violent person in 1995. His petition for supervised release was later granted, but the circuit court relieved the State from its order when it concluded that new evidence demonstrated that it was substantially probable Sprosty would reoffend. Sprosty appeals from the order granting the State’s motion for relief and from an order denying Sprosty’s motion to vacate the order for relief. Sprosty argues that no extraordinary circumstances have occurred under Wis. Stat. sec. 806.07(1)(h) (1999-2000) that would justify relieving the State from the 1996 order granting Sprosty’s petition for supervised release. In addition, Sprosty contends that the circuit court erred both when it allowed one of the State’s experts to testify, even though he was not licensed in Wisconsin, and later when it denied his motion to vacate the order for relief after it was discovered that the same witness had given misleading or false testimony.
We conclude that the circuit court did not exercise its discretion erroneously either when it determined that there were extraordinary circumstances justifying relief under Wis. Stat. sec. 806.07(1)(h) or when it allowed one of the State’s witness to give an expert opinion. Further, the circuit court did not err by denying Sprosty’s motion to vacate its order.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Not recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist IV, Crawford County, Kirchman, J., Dykman, J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Jack E. Schairer, Madison; Roseann T. Oliveto, Lancaster
For Respondent: Warren D. Weinstein, Madison; Timothy C. Baxter, Prairie du Chien; William A. Shepherd, La Crosse