00-2636 State ex. Rel. Gerard Noel Haas v. McReynolds, Sheriff

Listen to this article

“We have long and consistently held that the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is not available to a petitioner when the petitioner has other adequate remedies available. …

“In this case, there is no question that Haas had an otherwise adequate remedy: his direct appeal, which he voluntarily dismissed. Rather than seeking a separate habeas corpus writ, the appropriate course of action for Haas should have been a challenge of the circuit court’s denial of his first habeas corpus petition in the court of appeals. As this court has previously stated:

A decision in a habeas corpus action now stands in no different position than one in any other proceeding. If it be desired to review it upon the merits a motion should be made in the ordinary way for a review before the circuit court. If it be desired thereafter to present the question of whether the decision rendered is right, a writ of error may be sued out of this court for that purpose. …

“Instead, Haas has attempted to secure the same relief available to him in an ordinary appeal by extraordinary means, after voluntarily forgoing his ordinary remedy. Under such circumstances, the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is not available.

By voluntarily withdrawing his appeal, Haas is estopped from taking this collateral route to secure the same relief.”

Court of Appeals; Wilcox, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Robert G. Bernhoft, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Matthew W. McVey, Madison