Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2005AP890 In Re: the Commitment of Jonathan Bell

By: dmc-admin//January 23, 2006//

2005AP890 In Re: the Commitment of Jonathan Bell

By: dmc-admin//January 23, 2006//

Listen to this article

“Our supreme court held that pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 980.02(1), a request from the agency with jurisdiction, in that case the DOC, and a subsequent decision by the DOJ not to file are prerequisites to a district attorney’s authority to file a Wis. Stat. ch. 980 petition. … The court explained that the legislature intended to set forth a step-by-step process for determining when a ch. 980 petition can be filed that placed the agency with jurisdiction in the elevated role of gatekeeper….

“The court cited several policy reasons that support placing the agency with jurisdiction in a gatekeeper role that limits the district attorney’s authority. …The court observed that the agency with jurisdiction likely has had the most recent contact with the person, the most comprehensive information regarding the person’s status under wis. Stat. ch. 980 and the most significant amount of knowledge in supervising and dealing with sexual offenders in general. … The court also noted that a gatekeeper role for the agency with jurisdiction would facilitate the creation of a consistent, centralized and coordinated process for filing ch. 980 petitions. Finally, the court stated that ‘the use of the independent expertise of the agency with jurisdiction can be a tool for ensuring that the decision to file a [ch.] 980 petition is insulated from local pressures.’…

“However, contrary to Bell’s arguments, allowing a district attorney to have some input in the threshold decision of whether a ch. 980 petition should be filed does not contravene the legislature’s policy determination. The threshold decision of whether a petition should be filed remains in the experienced and able hands of the agency with jurisdiction and outside of the political process. A district attorney may contact the agency to seek clarification of the Wis. Stat. ch. 980 evaluator’s determination, to correct factual mistakes, to provide new or additional information, or to ask for a second opinion with a different evaluator….

“Wisconsin Stat. ch. 980, when read in its entirety, supports our conclusion. First, there is nothing in the chapter that expressly prohibits a district attorney from contacting the appropriate agency about a case, expressing its dissatisfaction with an evaluation and requesting a second opinion. Second, the notification provision, Wis. Stat. § 980.015, suggests that the legislature envisioned that the DOJ and the district attorney would have some input in the commitment decision. Section 980.015 requires the agency with jurisdiction to inform the DOJ and the appropriate district attorney of the anticipated release of a potentially sexually violent person as soon as possible, beginning three months prior to the person’s release. The notice from the agency with jurisdiction must contain specified information including a person’s offense history and documentation regarding any treatment. There would be no need for such notification if the legislature intended to prohibit the DOJ and the district attorney from engaging in a discussion with the agency about the status of a potentially sexually violent person. … There is simply no evidence suggesting that the district attorney’s office forcefully usurped the authority of the DOC and effectively made the commitment decision on its own. Absent such evidence, we refuse to entertain Bell’s otherwise unsupported and undeveloped due process challenge.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist II, Washington County, Gonring, J., Anderson, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests