Title: State v. Shawn Schulpius

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2001 WI 69 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
00-0095 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In re the Commitment of Shawn Schulpius: 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
Petitioner-Appellant, 
 
v. 
Shawn Schulpius,  
 
Respondent-Respondent.  
 
 
ON BYPASS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 22, 2001 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
December 1, 2000 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee 
 
JUDGE: 
John A. Franke 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating: PROSSER, J., did not participate. 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the petitioner-appellant the cause was argued 
by Warren D. Weinstein, assistant attorney general, with whom on 
the briefs was James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
 
For the respondent-respondent there were briefs 
and oral argument by Ellen Henak, assistant state public 
defender. 
 
2001 WI 69 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear 
in the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 00-0095 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN                    :  
  IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In re the Commitment of Shawn Schulpius: 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Petitioner-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Shawn Schulpius,  
 
          Respondent-Respondent. 
 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM. This case is before the court on a 
petition to bypass the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 809.60.  The immediate question before the court, however, is 
whether to accept the notice of voluntary dismissal of this 
appeal filed by the petitioner, State of Wisconsin.   
¶2 
The 
respondent, 
Shawn 
Schulpius, 
challenged 
his 
Chapter 980 commitment on several constitutional grounds when 
the Department of Health and Family Services could not find  
appropriate placement following the August 18, 1997, order that 
the respondent be placed on supervised release issued by the 
Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, John Franke, Circuit Court 
Judge.  
FILED 
 
JUN 22, 2001 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
00-0095 
 
 
2 
¶3 
On October 27, 1999, the circuit court held that as 
applied 
to 
Schulpius, 
Wis. 
Stat. 
Ch. 
980 
presented 
an 
unconstitutional violation of the double jeopardy, substantive 
due process, and ex post facto clauses of the United States and 
Wisconsin constitutions.  The circuit court entered an order 
releasing Schulpius from the Wisconsin Resource Center.  
¶4 
The 
State 
petitioned 
the 
court 
of 
appeals 
for 
permission to appeal a nonfinal order and the court of appeals 
granted the petition, State v. Schulpius, Case No. 00-0095 
(order of March 14, 2000).  After briefing, Schulpius petitioned 
this court to bypass the court of appeals.   
¶5 
On November 29, 2000, the circuit court entered an 
order 
in 
which 
it 
granted 
the 
State's 
motion 
for 
reconsideration, 
determined 
that 
Schulpius 
was 
no 
longer 
suitable for supervised release, and ordered him committed to 
the Wisconsin Resource Center.  The order further stated that 
the commitment to institutional care was "still subject, 
however, to the decision and order requiring release entered in 
this case on October 27, 1999."  The State filed a notice of 
voluntary dismissal in this court on November 30, 2000, and 
Schulpius responded with a motion for order rejecting notice of 
voluntary dismissal.  
¶6 
On December 1, 2000, this court heard oral argument on 
whether to accept the State's notice of voluntary dismissal and 
on the following three issues:  (1) whether the trial court had 
the authority to issue the November 29, 2000 order; (2) whether 
the order rendered the case moot; and (3) the possible effect of 
No. 
00-0095 
 
 
3 
the United States Supreme Court's decision in Seling v. Young, 
No. 99-1185.  After oral argument, the court received a copy of 
a December 1, 2000 letter of the circuit court further 
explaining its November 29, 2000 order.  Subsequently, we issued 
an order holding in abeyance the consideration of the State's 
notice of voluntary dismissal and the oral arguments on the 
merits of this appeal pending the United States Supreme Court's 
decision in Seling v. Young. 
¶7 
The United States Supreme Court issued its decision in 
Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (2001) on January 17, 2001.  
Schulpius 
then 
requested 
an 
opportunity 
for 
supplemental 
briefing addressing the effect of the circuit court's December 
1, 2000 letter on the issue of whether the circuit court 
intended the October 27, 1999 order to take precedence over the 
November 29, 2000 order and the effect of the Seling v. Young 
decision.  This court ordered the requested supplemental 
briefing.  
¶8 
Having considered the supplemental briefs filed by the 
parties, the court is equally divided on whether to accept the 
State's notice of voluntary dismissal.  Justice Jon P. Wilcox, 
Justice N. Patrick Crooks, and Justice Diane S. Sykes would 
accept the voluntary dismissal; Chief Justice Shirley S. 
Abrahamson, Justice William A. Bablitch, and Justice Ann Walsh 
Bradley would deny the voluntary dismissal and schedule further 
argument on the issues of this appeal.  Justice David T. Prosser 
did not participate.  Because the court is evenly divided, both 
No. 
00-0095 
 
 
4 
the motion for order rejecting the notice and the notice for 
voluntary dismissal are denied. 
¶9 
Furthermore, given the division of this court, it will 
promote the efficient resolution of this appeal to remand this 
case to the court of appeals.  We thus vacate our decision to 
grant bypass and remand the cause to the court of appeals for 
determination of further proceedings.  See Guzman v. St. Francis 
Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 34, ¶2, 234 Wis. 2d 170, 609 N.W.2d 166.   
By the Court.—The order granting bypass is vacated and the 
cause is remanded to the court of appeals.  
 
No. 
00-0095 
 
 
1