Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2009AP473 & 2009AP1611 Richards v. Graham

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 16, 2011//

2009AP473 & 2009AP1611 Richards v. Graham

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 16, 2011//

Listen to this article

Prisons
Risk classification

Where the PRC’s risk-rating determination is arbitrary, a prisoner’s elevation in custody classification is reversed.

“[A]n inmate’s risk rating is but one consideration relevant to establishing custody classification. In this case, however, the record shows that the PRC’s arbitrary risk-rating determination was the lynchpin of its decision to elevate Richards’ custody classification from minimum-community to minimum. We therefore conclude that the PRC’s decision to elevate Richards’ custody classification was also arbitrary.”

“The PRC argues that the Parole Commission’s twelve-month deferment—which, again, the PRC arbitrarily relied on in raising Richards’ risk rating—was but one part of the PRC’s decision to elevate Richards’ custody classification. The PRC notes that the decision states that its custody classification recommendation is based on not only the twelve-month deferment and sentence structure but also ‘offense/offense history’ and ‘positive institut[ional] adj[ustment].’ The record does not support this statement.”

“While the ‘nature and seriousness of the offense’ and the ‘inmate’s criminal record’ are factors the PRC may consider in determining custody classification, see Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 302.07(1) and (2), the PRC plainly did not rely on these factors in making its determination, as we have already explained. Moreover, as for positive institutional adjustment, this factor weighs against elevating Richards’ custody classification based on Richards’ lack of misconduct reports and completion of numerous prison programs.”
Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2009AP473 & 2009AP1611 Richards v. Graham

Dist. IV, Dane County, Nicks, Ebert, JJ., Higginbotham, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Harrison, Kendall W., Madison; Gregor, Jennifer L., Madison; For Respondent: Potts, Abigail, Madison

Full Text

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