00-2712 State ex rel. Treat v. Puckett

Listen to this article

“There is no dispute that periodic review of inmates’ security classifications and program assignments are necessary to maintain an orderly and secure correctional facility and to meet the rehabilitative needs of individual inmates. … It is therefore necessary that the contract provide for that function, and it is appropriate for DOC to decide that personnel in the facility housing the inmates will fulfill that function to the extent of conducting periodic program reviews and making recommendations to Puckett. …

“Accordingly, we conclude that DOC does have the authority to provide in its contract with CCA that CCA employees conduct reviews of Wisconsin inmate security classifications and program assignments. Therefore, the circuit court correctly decided that the Whiteville PRC did have the authority to conduct Treat’s program review.”

However, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing defendant’s petition and quashing the writ and remand for proceedings on the issue whether the determination of defendant’s risk assessment and, thus, his security classification in April 1999 were inconsistent with the applicable manuals or rules.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, Nichol, J., Vergeront, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Jerald Treat, Whiteville, TN; Howard B. Eisenberg, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Joely Urdan, Madison