Title: Gerard Noel Haas, Jr. v. William McReynolds
Citation: 2002 WI 43
Docket Number: 2000AP002636-W
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 30, 2002

2002 WI 43 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
00-2636-W 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Gerard Noel  
Haas, Jr.,  
 
Petitioner-Petitioner, 
 
v. 
William McReynolds, Sheriff of Racine County,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
(no cite) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 30, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 11, 2002   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Racine   
 
JUDGE: 
Allan B. Torhorst   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the petitioner-petitioner there were briefs by Robert 
G. Bernhoft and The Law Office of Robert G. Bernhoft, Milwaukee, 
and oral argument by Robert J. Bernhoft. 
 
For the respondent there was a brief and oral argument by 
Matthew W. McVey, assistant corporation counsel. 
 
 
2002 WI 43 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  00-2636-W  
(L.C. No. 
00 CV 776) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Gerard Noel  
Haas, Jr.,  
 
          Petitioner-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
William McReynolds, Sheriff of Racine  
County,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 30, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed. 
 
¶1 
JON P. WILCOX, J.   In this case we review an 
unpublished order of the court of appeals, which dismissed a 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Gerard N. Haas, 
Jr.  The Racine Municipal Court issued seven commitment orders 
for Haas after he had failed to pay forfeitures to the city for 
various ordinance violations.  Haas was apprehended by the 
Racine Police Department and transferred to the custody of the 
Racine County Sheriff's Department for confinement in the Racine 
County Jail. 
No. 
00-2636-W   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Haas challenged his confinement by filing a petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus with the Racine County Circuit 
Court, Allan B. Torhorst, Judge.  In the petition, Haas 
challenged the jurisdiction of the municipal court to issue the 
commitments.  The circuit court issued an initial stay of the 
execution of Haas's jail sentence and ordered him released 
without bond, pending a hearing.  At that hearing, the circuit 
court denied Haas's request for the writ. 
¶3 
Haas then filed a notice of his intent to appeal the 
circuit court's decision.  Within a few days, Haas also filed a 
separate petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this court.  
Haas then voluntarily withdrew his appeal of the first petition.  
This court transferred the second habeas corpus petition to the 
court of appeals for disposition.  The court of appeals denied 
the second petition because (1) Haas was not restrained of his 
liberty at the time of the request, and (2) Haas was not 
entitled 
to 
habeas 
corpus 
relief 
because 
he 
voluntarily 
dismissed his direct appeal.  Haas petitioned this court for 
review, and we accepted.  We now affirm the court of appeals' 
decision. 
I 
¶4 
On February 10, 2000, Haas was arrested by the City of 
Racine Police Department pursuant to seven commitment orders 
issued by the Racine Municipal Court and signed by Municipal 
Judge Robert Michelson.  The commitments were issued for failure 
to pay forfeitures that had been levied as a result of municipal 
ordinance violations——three for failure to abate lead, two for 
No. 
00-2636-W   
 
3 
 
operating a vehicle after revocation, one for a health code 
violation, and one for failure to remove snow and ice.  Haas was 
transferred to the custody of the Racine County Sheriff's 
Department, who, pursuant to the orders, committed Haas to the 
Racine County Jail. 
¶5 
The next day, Haas filed a petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus with the Racine County Circuit Court, in which he 
challenged the municipal court's jurisdiction to issue the 
commitments.  Haas claimed that the municipal court lacked 
subject matter jurisdiction because it did not have the 
authority to issue "contempt orders."1  The circuit court ordered 
that Haas be temporarily released without bond until a hearing 
could be held on the merits of the habeas corpus petition. 
¶6 
On June 9, 2000, the circuit court conducted a hearing 
on the petition.  In an order dated June 29, 2000, the circuit 
court held that: 
(1) there 
was 
legal cause 
for 
Haas's 
imprisonment; (2) the Racine Municipal Court acted within its 
jurisdiction; (3) Haas's due process rights were not violated; 
(4) there was no reasonable basis for Haas's habeas corpus 
petition; and (5) the petition was frivolous.  The circuit court 
vacated its temporary order, ordered that Haas be taken into 
                                                 
1 The commitment orders were titled "Contempt of Court——
Commitment Upon Sentence."  The county asserts that the titles 
were merely administrative and that the commitment orders were 
not truly for "contempt."  However, the actual nature of the 
commitments is irrelevant to our analysis because we do not 
reach the question of the municipal court's jurisdiction. 
No. 
00-2636-W   
 
4 
 
custody pursuant to the municipal commitments, and ordered that 
Haas reimburse the county for costs. 
¶7 
On September 27, 2000, Haas, proceeding pro se, filed 
a notice of appeal pursuant to Wis. Stat. §  (Rule) 809.10(1) 
(1999-2000)2 to challenge the circuit court's denial of his first 
petition.  On October 3, 2000, Haas filed a separate habeas 
corpus petition directly with this court, asking us to exercise 
our original jurisdiction to grant the writ.  This petition 
addressed the same issues that had been raised before the 
circuit court in the first petition.  This court determined that 
the court of appeals had concurrent jurisdiction to consider 
Haas's second petition, and we transferred that petition to the 
court of appeals for disposition. 
¶8 
On December 6, 2000, Haas filed notice with the court 
of appeals asking that his appeal of the circuit court's denial 
of his first petition be voluntarily dismissed, pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.18.  Because the court of appeals had 
not yet issued an opinion in the appeal, it was required to 
honor Haas's request to withdraw the appeal.  State v. Lee, 197 
Wis. 2d 959, 972, 542 N.W.2d 143 (1996).  Haas's direct appeal 
of the first petition was dismissed in an order dated December 
14, 2000. 
¶9 
In an unpublished summary opinion dated February 12, 
2001, the court of appeals then ruled on Haas's second habeas 
                                                 
2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
00-2636-W   
 
5 
 
corpus petition.  Relying primarily on State ex rel. Fuentes v. 
Court of Appeals, 225 Wis. 2d 446, 593 N.W.2d 48 (1999), the 
court of appeals held that (1) Haas had been released and was no 
longer restrained of his liberty; and (2) Haas had an adequate 
alternative remedy, namely, his appeal of the circuit court's 
denial of his first habeas corpus petition, which he had 
voluntarily dismissed.  Id. at 451.  Based on these holdings, 
the court of appeals concluded that Haas was not entitled to the 
separate writ of habeas corpus and denied Haas's petition. 
¶10 Haas petitioned this court for review of the court of 
appeals decision, and we accepted.  On review, we affirm the 
decision of the court of appeals on the grounds that Haas had an 
adequate alternative remedy available to him.  Because Haas 
could have sought (and in fact started to seek) a direct appeal 
of the first habeas corpus petition to address the same issues 
he now raises, he was not entitled to a separate writ.  Because 
we decide the case on those grounds, we do not address the 
questions of whether or not Haas was in custody when he 
petitioned for the writ, or whether the municipal court had 
jurisdiction to issue the commitments. 
II 
¶11 The writ of habeas corpus has its origins in the 
common law, and its availability is guaranteed by the U.S. 
Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution, and by state and 
federal statute.  Fuentes, 225 Wis. 2d at 450 (citing State ex 
rel. Korne v. Wolke, 79 Wis. 2d 22, 26, 255 N.W.2d 446 (1977); 
State ex rel. Durner v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 220, 85 N.W. 1046 
No. 
00-2636-W   
 
6 
 
(1901)); see also U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2; Wis. Const. 
art. I, § 8(4); 28 U.S.C. § 2241; Wis. Stat. § 782.01.  Habeas 
corpus is essentially an equitable remedy, which is available to 
a petitioner when there is a pressing need for relief or where 
the process or judgment by which a petitioner is held is void.  
State ex rel. Dowe v. Waukesha County Circuit Court, 184 
Wis. 2d 724, 729-30, 516 N.W.2d 714 (1994).  The writ has a 
unique character in that the petition normally arises pursuant 
to a criminal proceeding, but is litigated as an independent 
civil proceeding.  Fuentes, 225 Wis. 2d at 450-51. 
¶12 As an extraordinary writ, habeas corpus is available 
to a petitioner only under limited circumstances.  First, a 
party who seeks habeas corpus relief must be restrained of his 
or her liberty.  Id. at 451 (citing State ex rel. Hake v. Burke, 
21 Wis. 2d 405, 124 N.W.2d 457 (1963); State ex rel. Wohlfahrt 
v. Bodette, 95 Wis. 2d 130, 132-33, 289 N.W.2d 366 (Ct. App. 
1980)).  Additionally, a party seeking the writ must show that 
the restraint was imposed by a body without jurisdiction or that 
the 
restraint 
was 
imposed 
contrary 
to 
constitutional 
protections.  Id. (citing State ex rel. Warrender v. Kenosha 
County Court, 67 Wis. 2d 333, 339, 231 N.W.2d 193 (1975); Wolke 
v. Fleming, 24 Wis. 2d 606, 613-14, 129 N.W.2d 841 (1964); Edwin 
E. Bryant, 9 Wisconsin Pleading and Practice § 84.03, at 223-24 
(3d ed. 1998)).  Finally, a party seeking the writ must show 
that there was no other adequate remedy available in the law.  
Id. (citing Dowe, 184 Wis. 2d at 729).  Unless these criteria 
No. 
00-2636-W   
 
7 
 
are met, the writ of habeas corpus will not be available to a 
petitioner. 
¶13 In this case, William McReynolds, as Racine County 
Sheriff, challenges Haas's second habeas corpus petition on 
several grounds.  McReynolds puts forward three arguments 
supporting the denial of the writ: (1) Haas was not in custody 
at the time of the petition; (2) successive writs are disallowed 
under Wisconsin law; and (3) Haas had an adequate alternate 
remedy.  We find it necessary to address only the third 
argument, as our finding there is dispositive. 
¶14 The writ of habeas corpus does not issue as a right.  
State ex rel. Doxtater v. Murphy, 248 Wis. 593, 602, 22 
N.W.2d 685 (1946).  We have long and consistently held that the 
extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is not available to a 
petitioner when the petitioner has other adequate remedies 
available.  Fuentes, 225 Wis. 2d at 451; State ex rel. Jacobus 
v. State, 208 Wis. 2d 39, 46-47, 559 N.W.2d 900 (1997); Dowe, 
184 Wis. 2d at 733-34; Wolke, 24 Wis. 2d at 614; Doxtater, 248 
Wis. at 602.  For instance, habeas corpus is not available to 
challenge a bindover decision by a court commissioner because 
the decision is challengeable on a statutory motion to dismiss.  
Dowe, 184 Wis. 2d at 733-34.  Similarly, the writ is not 
available to challenge the sufficiency of probable cause to 
issue a criminal complaint, even when the challenge is brought 
between 
arrest 
and 
the 
preliminary 
hearing, 
because 
the 
challenge can be made using other remedies at trial.  Wolke, 24 
Wis. 2d at 613-14.  Habeas corpus proceedings are likewise not 
No. 
00-2636-W   
 
8 
 
available 
to 
challenge 
an 
administrative 
order 
revoking 
probation, since a writ of certiorari is available, and is the 
proper remedy under such circumstances.  State ex rel. Reddin v. 
Galster, 215 Wis. 2d 179, 183, 572 N.W.2d 505 (Ct. App. 1997).  
In short, if the petitioner has an otherwise adequate remedy 
that he or she may exercise to obtain the same relief, the writ 
will not be issued. 
¶15 In this case, there is no question that Haas had an 
otherwise 
adequate 
remedy: 
his 
direct 
appeal, 
which 
he 
voluntarily dismissed.  Rather than seeking a separate habeas 
corpus writ, the appropriate course of action for Haas should 
have been a challenge of the circuit court's denial of his first 
habeas corpus petition in the court of appeals.  As this court 
has previously stated: 
A decision in a habeas corpus action now stands in no 
different position than one in any other proceeding.  
If it be desired to review it upon the merits a motion 
should be made in the ordinary way for a review before 
the circuit court.  If it be desired thereafter to 
present the question of whether the decision rendered 
is right, a writ of error may be sued out of this 
court for that purpose. 
State ex rel. Gaster v. Whitcher, 117 Wis. 668, 673, 94 N.W. 787 
(1903) (citation omitted); see also State ex rel. McCaslin v. 
Smith, 65 Wis. 93, 97, 26 N.W. 258 (1886), where we stated: 
The order made in [a habeas corpus] proceeding by the 
court is in the nature of a final judgment, and the 
policy of our constitution and laws is to allow a 
review of such an adjudication; and it is most in 
accord with our rules of practice and the analogies of 
the law to allow this to be done on writ of error. 
No. 
00-2636-W   
 
9 
 
¶16 The circuit court's denial of the first petition was a 
final order within 
the 
definition 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 808.03.  
Therefore, the court of appeals was well within its jurisdiction 
and its capacity to review the circuit court's decision to deny 
Haas's first writ, and, if necessary, to consider the underlying 
claim and determine whether or not the municipal court had 
jurisdiction to issue the commitments.  If Haas had received an 
adverse decision on appeal, he would have then been able to 
petition this court for review. 
¶17 Instead, Haas has attempted to secure the same relief 
available to him in an ordinary appeal by extraordinary means, 
after voluntarily forgoing his ordinary remedy.  Under such 
circumstances, the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is not 
available.  By voluntarily withdrawing his appeal, Haas is 
estopped from taking this collateral route to secure the same 
relief. 
¶18 Haas contends that the alternative remedy restriction 
should not apply because he is challenging the jurisdiction of 
the court rather than a judicial error.  Haas misconstrues the 
relationship between the writ and the procedural posture of his 
case. 
 
In 
his 
original 
petition, 
Haas 
challenged 
the 
jurisdiction of the municipal court, not the jurisdiction of the 
circuit court.  On appeal, Haas would have been able to 
challenge the circuit court's decision that the municipal court 
had jurisdiction to issue the commitments.  This issue would 
have been a proper one for appeal, and we will not grant an 
No. 
00-2636-W   
 
10 
 
extraordinary writ when the petitioner voluntarily relinquished 
what was an otherwise adequate and available remedy. 
¶19 Finally, we note that we occasionally have exercised 
our discretion to grant a writ after a petitioner had failed to 
exercise other adequate remedies.  However, we have only done so 
under exceptional circumstances.  See, e.g., Fuentes, 225 
Wis. 2d at 453 (granting a writ of habeas corpus when a clerical 
error by the court deprived the defendant of his ability to 
petition this court for review).  Here, Haas has shown no such 
exceptional circumstances that would require us to issue the 
writ.  Because Haas voluntarily dismissed his own direct appeal, 
he may not seek the same remedy he could have sought in that 
appeal through extraordinary means. 
III 
¶20 Because we find that Haas had an adequate, alternate 
remedy to challenge the denial of his first writ of habeas 
corpus, he was not entitled to a separate writ.  We are 
therefore not required to address the issues of custody, 
successive writs, or the jurisdiction of the municipal court.  
The court of appeals properly denied Haas's petition, and we 
affirm the decision of the court of appeals. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
No. 
00-2636-W   
 
 
 
1