Case Title: William E. Marberry v. Phillip G. Macht

Citation: 2001 WI 19

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
2001 WI 19 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
99-2446 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. William E. Marberry,  
 
Petitioner-Appellant, 
 
v. 
Phillip G. Macht, Superintendent, Wisconsin 
Resource Center, and Joseph S. Leean, Secretary, 
Department of Health and Family Services,  
 
Respondents-Respondents.  
 
 
ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
March 13, 2001 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
January 4, 2001 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Winnebago 
 
JUDGE: 
Robert Hawley 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating: PROSSER, J., did not participate. 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the petitioner-appellant there were briefs 
and oral argument by Donald T. Lang, assistant state public 
defender. 
 
 
For the respondents-respondents the cause was 
argued by Marguerite M. Moeller, assistant attorney general, with 
whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
2001 WI 19 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear 
in the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 99-2446 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN                    :  
  IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel.  
William E. Marberry,  
 
          Petitioner-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Phillip G. Macht, Superintendent,  
Wisconsin Resource Center, and Joseph S.  
Leean, Secretary, Department of Health 
and Family Services,  
 
          Respondents-Respondents. 
 
 
CERTIFICATION of a question of law from the Court of 
Appeals.  Decision to certify vacated and cause remanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.    The court is equally divided on the 
resolution of this appeal.  Justice Prosser did not participate. 
 Justice Wilcox, Justice Crooks, and Justice Sykes would affirm 
the order of the circuit court for Winnebago County.  Chief 
Justice Abrahamson, Justice Bablitch, and Justice Bradley would 
issue the following order seeking additional briefing in this 
court: 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 13, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
99-2446 
 
 
2 
This 
court, 
having 
reviewed 
the 
record, 
having 
considered the briefs submitted by the parties, and 
having heard oral argument and, specifically, having 
heard the Assistant Attorney General advise the court 
that committees have not timely received statutorily 
required 6-month evaluations and that the Department 
will not have completed timely examinations until May 
1, 2001, concludes that additional information and 
additional briefs would be helpful. 
 
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner-Appellant 
William 
E. 
Marberry, 
and 
Respondents-Respondents, 
Phillip G. Macht, Superintendent, Wisconsin Resources 
Center, and Joseph S. Leean, Secretary, Department of 
Health and Family Services, address the following 
questions in additional briefs: 
 
1. 
What facts exist to explain Respondents' failure 
to examine committee Marberry until more than 
eighteen months after the time period specified in 
Wis. Stat. § 980.07(1) and more than ten months 
after the circuit court ordered Respondents to 
conduct a prompt examination?  What facts existed in 
the past regarding the Respondents' inability to 
periodically examine Chapter 980, Wis. Stats., 
committees 
in 
accordance 
with 
the 
statutory 
requirements in Wis. Stat. § 980.07(1)?  What are 
the projections of future expanded or new facilities 
and 
additional 
staffing 
that 
will 
enable 
the 
Respondents to comply with the statute in the 
future?  Is it necessary to remand the cause to the 
circuit court to determine these facts? 
 
2. 
Does the Respondents' explanation for the failure 
to perform the periodic examinations on committee 
Marberry required under Wis. Stat. § 980.07(1) 
provide a valid excuse under the law for the failure 
to 
comply 
therewith? 
 
Does 
the 
Respondents' 
explanation for the failure to perform the prompt 
periodic examination on Marberry required by the 
circuit court order provide a valid excuse under the 
law for the failure to comply therewith? 
 
3. 
If Respondents have failed to follow Wis. Stat. 
§ 980.07(1) 
in 
regard 
to 
timely 
periodic 
examinations on Marberry and other committees or if 
Respondents in the future fail to follow the 
No. 
99-2446 
 
 
3 
statute, should the court hold that the statute is 
facially unconstitutional on equal protection or due 
process grounds or as applied? 
 
4. 
What effect, if any, does the decision in Seling 
v. Young, U.S. Supreme Court No. 99-1185 (Jan. 17, 
2001), have on this case? 
 
5. 
If 
compliance 
with 
the 
periodic 
examination 
provision set forth in Wis. Stat. § 980.07(1) is 
required, but the statute nonetheless allows a 
reasonable deviation from the six-month time limit 
therein, what would be a reasonable amount of time 
for the examination after the six-month period has 
expired? 
 
6. 
If 
compliance 
with 
the 
periodic 
examination 
provision set forth in Wis. Stat. § 980.07(1) is 
required but the statute nonetheless allows a 
reasonable deviation from the six-month time limit 
set forth therein, what remedies are available to 
Marberry or other Chapter 980 committees if the 
Respondents' failure to examine the committee within 
a reasonable amount of time after the six-month time 
period set forth therein?  Address the availability, 
advisability, and effectiveness of each remedy for 
Marberry and other committees who have not been 
timely examined, including but not limited to the 
following: 
release; 
remedial 
contempt; 
punitive 
contempt; damages and attorneys' fees under Wis. 
Stat. § 51.61(7); damages and attorneys' fees under 
42 U.S.C. § 1983; writ of habeas corpus; writ of 
mandamus; 
supervised 
release 
under 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 980.08; and the appointment of an independent 
expert by the court to examine and report to the 
court on the committee. 
 
7. 
If the Respondents' violation of Wis. Stat. 
§ 980.07(1) requires release of Marberry or any 
Chapter 980 committee, may the Respondents pursue 
commitment proceedings against a released committee 
under Chapter 51, Wis. Stats.? 
 
8. 
In deciding the remedies available to Marberry, 
should this court apply its holding prospectively 
only ("sunbursting"), that is, only to committees 
who in the future are not examined timely in 
No. 
99-2446 
 
 
4 
accordance with the statute?  If the court were to 
"sunburst," may this court's holding about remedies 
apply prospectively from the date the opinion is 
mandated or may a future date be used?  If a future 
date is used, what date should that be?  If the 
court applies its holding prospectively only, should 
the court apply the holding about remedies to 
Marberry?  Must it? 
 
¶2 
Because the court is equally divided as to the 
resolution of this appeal, we vacate our decision to certify and 
remand to the court of appeals.  State v. Knutson, 191 Wis. 2d 
395, 528 N.W.2d 430 (1995). 
By the Court.—Decision to certify vacated and cause 
remanded. 
 
No. 
99-2446 
 
 
1