Title: Ruven George Seibert v. Phillip Macht

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2002 WI 12 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
99-3354-W 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Ruven George Seibert,  
 
Petitioner-Petitioner, 
 
v. 
Phillip Macht, Director, Wisconsin Resource  
Center and Circuit Court for Outagamie County,  
 
Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
2001 WI 67 
Reported at:  244 Wis. 2d 378, 627 N.W.2d 881 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 8, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., concurs (opinion filed).   
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 12 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound 
volume 
of 
the 
official 
reports.   
No.  99-3354-W   
(L.C. No. 
95 CV 1036) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Ruven George  
Seibert,  
 
 
Petitioner-Petitioner, 
 
              v. 
 
Phillip Macht, Director, Wisconsin Resource  
Center and Circuit Court for Outagamie County,  
 
 
Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 8, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
MOTION for reconsideration.  Reconsideration denied. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  Respondents Phillip Macht and the Circuit 
Court for Outagamie County move this court for reconsideration 
of its opinion in State ex rel. Seibert v. Macht, 2001 WI 67, 
244 Wis. 2d 378, 627 N.W.2d 881, for the limited purpose of 
revising or correcting sentences in two paragraphs of the 
court's opinion.   
¶2 
The motion for reconsideration is denied without 
costs.  However, having carefully considered the respondents' 
arguments, the court makes the following revisions: 
No. 99-3354-W   
 
2 
 
 
(1) Paragraph 12, beginning with the fourth sentence, 
is revised to read:  
An 
alleged 
sexually 
violent 
person, 
subject 
to 
commitment under Chapter 980, is not a criminal 
defendant.  However, such a person has the same 
constitutional rights as a criminal defendant at 
trial.  This is recognized in Wis. Stat. § 980.05(1m), 
which provides: "All constitutional rights available 
to a defendant in a criminal proceeding are available 
to the person."  We think it follows that an 
individual 
committed 
under 
Chapter 
980 
has 
a 
constitutional right of counsel in bringing his or her 
first appeal as of right, emanating from both the 
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the 
Due Process Clause as well as the Sixth Amendment's 
right of counsel.   
Footnote 3 is retained, and the remainder of paragraph 12 is not 
changed.   
 
(2) The seventh sentence of Paragraph 19 is revised 
by removing the clause, "While the State urges us to subject 
Seibert to this procedural hurdle under Strickland," so that it 
reads: "We note that Strickland is applicable only where an 
individual is represented by counsel."  Footnote 6 is retained 
but revised to read:  
The Supreme Court observed in Smith v. Robbins, 
528 U.S. 259, 286 (2000), that "[t]he applicability of 
Strickland's actual-prejudice prong to Robbins's claim 
of ineffective assistance follows from Penson, where 
we distinguished denial of counsel altogether on 
appeal, which warrants a presumption of prejudice, 
from mere ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal, 
which does not." 
¶3 
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied 
without costs. 
 
No.  99-3354-W.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶4 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE   (concurring).  
I agree that the State's motion for reconsideration in this case 
should be denied and that the opinion should be clarified.  I 
write to place the court's corrections in the context of the 
State's motion for reconsideration. 
¶5 
The State requested two corrections: 
¶6 
First, the State requested that the reference to 
Wis. Stat. § 980.05 in paragraph 12 of the opinion be deleted as 
a basis for finding that Seibert has a constitutional right to 
counsel on his first appeal as a matter of right.  The State 
gives three reasons for this correction: 
(1) The last sentence in § 980.05(1m) may, but need not, 
be interpreted as applicable only to trial.  The State 
therefore requests that this court not define the scope of 
§ 980.05(1m) 
without 
discussing 
all 
the 
possible 
interpretations of the section and explaining why one 
interpretation is adopted rather than another potential 
interpretation. 
(2) The way in which the court cites § 980.05(1m) suggests 
that the court views the statute as creating constitutional 
rights.  The State argues that this interpretation of the 
statute appears to be inconsistent with State v. Smith, 229 
Wis. 2d 720, 731, 600 N.W.2d 258 (Ct. App. 1999), in which 
the court of appeals characterizes § 980.05(1m) as creating 
statutory rights.  
(3) If § 980.05(1m) creates only a statutory right to 
counsel, its citation is inconsistent with Part III of the 
No.  99-3354-W.ssa 
 
2 
 
opinion that makes Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 
(1967), applicable to ch. 980 appeals. 
¶7 
The correction the court adopts makes clear, as the 
State requested, that a ch. 980 individual has a constitutional, 
in contrast to a statutory, right of counsel in bringing his or 
her first appeal as a matter of right. 
¶8 
Second, the State requested the correction that the 
court adopts in paragraph 19, because the State concedes that 
prejudice 
would 
be 
presumed 
if 
Seibert 
proved 
deficient 
performance. 
¶9 
For the reasons set forth, I write separately. 
 
 
No.  99-3354-W.ssa 
 
1