00-2957 In Re: the Commitment of Thomas Treadway

Listen to this article

“We conclude, therefore, that while the legislature may choose to clarify this point by amending Wis. Stat. ch. 980, we need not, in the meantime, require counsel to jump through two hoops in order to preserve appellate rights. Accordingly, we conclude that a sexually violent person committed under ch. 980 preserves the right to appeal, as a matter of right, by filing postverdict motions within twenty days of the commitment order.”

And, even though the State did not file its ch. 980 petition within 90 days of defendant’s release from a sentence for a sexually violent offense, the petition was nevertheless timely because it was filed within 90 days of his final aggregate sentence for non-sexual offenses.

“Although portions of our discussion in [State v.] Keith [citation] were linked to the specific nature of consecutive sentences,… our essential reasoning, springing from consideration of the statute’s legislative history, encompasses concurrent sentences as well. To conclude otherwise would make no sense. …

“After all, if the State were required to file its Wis. Stat. ch. 980 petition within ninety days of the conclusion of a sentence for a sexually violent offense, despite the fact that the subject of the petition still could be serving additional time in an unbroken string of sentences, the petition could not accurately address the defendant’s circumstances, mental condition, and treatment needs at the time of scheduled release. Discharge or release could be many months or, as in this case, many years away.”Moreover, in some cases, concurrent sentences, or concurrent and consecutive sentences, interlace, and some are further complicated by sentences after revocation. In such circumstances, the State easily could miscalculate the discharge or release date for the last sexually violent offense among the offenses not deemed sexually violent and miss the opportunity to seek Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitment. Under such circumstances, both of ch. 980’s ‘twin objectives’-the protection of the public and the treatment needs of the offender-would be disserved by precluding a court’s consideration of commitment.”

Affirmed.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Konkol, J., Schudson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Lynn E. Hackbarth, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; Eileen W. Pray, Madison; Christian R. Larsen, Madison