00-1700 In Re: the Commitment of Lenny P. Keding v. Keding

Listen to this article

Affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION: Bradley, J., with whom Abrahamson, Ch. J., joins. “In affirming the circuit court’s order revoking Lenny Keding’s supervised release, the majority concludes that the court considered whether there were any alternatives to revocation. I conclude that the circuit court’s inquiry here was meaningless because no alternatives exist. …

“The constitutionality of ch. 980 hinges in part upon its provisions for supervised release. I conclude that these provisions require a circuit court to consider alternatives to revocation before revoking supervised release under ch. 980. Just as the State failed to provide a viable community placement at the time of Keding’s supervised release, it failed to provide any viable alternative to revocation.

“If, as here, the State fails to ensure that viable alternatives exist, then the necessary inquiry into alternatives to revocation is fanciful, and so is the constitutionality of ch. 980 as applied to Keding.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.”

Wood County, Mason, J., Sykes, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Margaret A. Maroney, Madison

For Respondent: Warren D. Weinstein, James E. Doyle, Madison