Case Title: State v. David W. Oakley

Citation: 2001 WI 123

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2001-11-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
2001 WI 123 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
99-3328-CR 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
v. 
David W. Oakley,  
 
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 23, 2001   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., concurs (opinion filed). 
BRADLEY and SYKES, J.J., join concurrence.   
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
2001 WI 123 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
No.  99-3328-CR  
(L.C. No. 
98 CF 206) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
David W. Oakley,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 23, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  (on motion for reconsideration).  David 
W. Oakley, defendant-appellant-petitioner, moves this court for 
reconsideration of its opinion in State v. Oakley, 2001 WI 103, 
245 Wis. 2d 447, 629 N.W.2d 200.  Oakley contends that this 
court misconstrued significant facts in applying the holding to 
the facts in this case.  Since that is not correct, the motion 
for reconsideration is denied without costs. 
¶2 
Even though the motion for reconsideration is denied, 
we find it appropriate now to withdraw the following language 
from the third sentence in paragraph 3, "——where one of the 
victims was his own child",  and the following language from the 
third sentence in paragraph 14:  "his own child and".  Justice 
No. 
99-3328-CR   
 
2 
 
William A. Bablitch withdraws the sixth sentence in paragraph 33 
from his concurrence:  "He has abused at least one of them." 
¶3 
To 
the 
extent 
the 
majority 
opinion 
requires 
clarification, we emphasize that the holding was based on 
extraordinary circumstances.  The facts presented to this court 
demonstrate that this case is not about a person's inability to 
pay child support.  Rather, the exceptional circumstances 
outlined show an intentional unwillingness to pay child support 
by a man with a prior criminal record.  The exceptional 
circumstances of this case include, among other things, that 
Oakley was in arrears in support of his nine children in excess 
of $25,000.00, and that Oakley had three convictions, and four 
read-ins, for intentional refusal to pay child support, in 
violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.22.  Under such circumstances, the 
probation 
condition 
is 
not 
overbroad. 
 
Furthermore, 
the 
probation condition is reasonably related to the goal of 
rehabilitation, and is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling 
state interest in requiring parents to support their children. 
 
 
No.  99-3328-CR.ssa 
 
 
 
1
 
¶4 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE   (concurring).  
Although I was in the dissent in this opinion, I agree that the 
motion for reconsideration should be denied.  But I conclude 
that the per curiam opinion is not an adequate response to the 
motion. 
¶5 
David Oakley explicitly states that he does not seek 
"reconsideration of the novel legal holding adopted by the 
Court——viz., 
that 
a 
court 
may 
in 
certain 
extraordinary 
circumstances condition a defendant's probation on his not 
having children unless certain prerequisites are met."1 
¶6 
Rather, Oakley's motion for reconsideration is based 
on the application of the holding to what he considers are 
mistakes made by the majority in the statement of the facts of 
the case.  Oakley asserts that the majority misapprehended the 
undisputed facts.  He urges the majority to hold that the 
imposition of such an extraordinary condition of probation was 
not appropriate on the facts of this case. 
¶7 
I conclude that the per curiam opinion should be 
further developed in light of Oakley's assertions about the 
majority's misapprehension of the facts. 
                                                 
1 Oakley notes that the majority opinion is internally 
inconsistent in stating the prerequisites he must meet to 
satisfy the conditions of probation.  Oakley notes that the 
majority opinion states that the circuit court's order requires 
him to "avoid having another child, unless he shows that he can 
support that child and his current children."  Majority op. at 
¶1.  See also ¶¶6, 20.  Oakley notes that the majority opinion 
also 
states that 
he can 
satisfy 
the 
condition "by not 
intentionally refusing to support his current nine children and 
any future children."  Majority op. at ¶20. 
No.  99-3328-CR.ssa 
 
 
 
2
 
I 
 
¶8 
Oakley asserts that the majority misapprehended the 
following two key facts: (1) the majority misapprehended 
Oakley's compliance with his child support obligations prior to 
the imposition of the condition of probation; and (2) the 
majority 
misapprehended 
Oakley's 
supposed 
history 
of 
intimidation and abuse.  
¶9 
First, Oakley asserts that the majority misapprehended 
Oakley's compliance with his child support obligations prior to 
the imposition of the condition of probation.  Oakley states 
that the majority did not consider that he had in fact made 
child support payments and that his payments constituted in 
excess of 70% of his child support obligations.  Exhibits in the 
record support Oakley's assertions.  Oakley argues that the 
record therefore does not support the majority's premise that 
the extraordinary probation condition in this case was warranted 
because of his persistent and stubborn refusal to pay child 
support.  According to the record, any persistent and stubborn 
refusal to pay child support is limited to the single 120-day 
period, that is, January 1, 1998, to April 30, 1998, for which 
he was charged and convicted.  
¶10 The State does not challenge Oakley's statement of the 
facts about his support payments.  To the contrary, the State 
responds that it has never contended that Oakley never paid any 
support for his children. 
No.  99-3328-CR.ssa 
 
 
 
3
¶11 The majority remains silent about Oakley's support 
payments during the entire period except from January 1, 1998, 
to 
April 
30, 
1998, 
in 
determining 
the 
extraordinary 
circumstances 
justifying 
this 
extraordinary 
condition 
of 
probation.  I conclude that the majority has not fully stated 
the facts in its opinion and in the per curiam opinion and has 
not considered all the facts in applying its holding.  
¶12 Second, 
Oakley 
asserts 
that 
the 
majority 
misapprehended his supposed history of intimidation and abuse. 
¶13 The majority and concurrence apparently agree with 
Oakley on this point and have appropriately corrected in the per 
curiam opinion the "facts" stated in the respective opinions. 
 
II 
 
¶14 Oakley also asserts that the majority misapprehended 
Oakley's 
compliance 
with 
his 
child 
support 
obligations 
subsequent to the imposition of the condition of probation. 
¶15 The State responds that the circuit court, not this 
court, is the appropriate forum in which Oakley should make any 
argument relating to compliance with the condition of probation.  
I agree with the State. 
¶16 For the reasons set forth, I write separately.  I 
would deny the motion for reconsideration, but I conclude that 
the per curiam opinion fails to state or consider significant 
facts.  The per curiam opinion should apply the majority's 
No.  99-3328-CR.ssa 
 
 
 
4
holding, considering Oakley's record of making support payments 
as well as his record of not making support payments.  
¶17 I am authorized to state that Justices ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY and DIANE S. SYKES join this opinion. 
 
No.  99-3328-CR.ssa 
 
 
 
1