Title: State v. Heriberto Castillo, Jr.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1995AP001628
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 7, 1997

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
95-1628 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
State of  Wisconsin, 
 
Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Petitioner, 
 
v. 
Heriberto Castillo, Jr., 
 
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at:  205 Wis. 2d 592, 556 N.W.2d 425 
 
 
 
 
(Ct. App. 1996) 
 
 
 
 
PUBLISHED 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
November 7, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
September 3, 1997 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Waukesha 
 
JUDGE: 
Marianne E. Becker 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were 
briefs and oral argument by Keith A. Findley of the University of 
Wisconsin Law School, Madison. 
 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent-cross petitioner the 
cause was argued by Warren D. Weinstein, assistant attorney 
general, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, attorney 
general.  
 
No. 95-1628 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 95-1628 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent- 
          Cross Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Heriberto Castillo, Jr.,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.  
FILED 
 
NOV 7, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the court of appeals. Dismissed as 
improvidently granted. 
¶1 
N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.  Petitioner seeks review of a 
published decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit 
court's order committing him as a sexually violent person 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. ch. 980 (1993-94)1 and remanding the case 
to allow him to withdraw his admission that he is a sexually 
violent person.  After thorough review of the record and the 
briefs of the parties, and after having heard oral argument, we 
conclude this case does not present an adverse decision by the 
court of appeals as claimed by petitioner in his petition for 
review.  Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as improvidently 
granted. 
                     
1 All future references to Wis. Stats. will be to the 1993-
94 version of the statutes unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 95-1628 
 
2 
¶2 
We recognize that the parties have expended a great 
deal of time and effort in presenting this case; therefore, we 
will not dismiss the petition without explanation. See Hoskins 
v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 180 Wis. 2d 534, 536, 509 N.W.2d 
432 (1994) (Abrahamson, J., dissenting).  A very brief rendition 
of the facts is therefore appropriate.  
¶3 
On 
March 
29, 
1990, 
Heriberto 
Castillo, 
Jr. 
("Castillo") was adjudged delinquent based on two counts of 
first degree sexual assault.  Prior to his scheduled release 
from the juvenile correction facility, the State filed a 
petition under Wis. Stat. § 980.02(4)(a), requesting an order 
detaining Castillo as a sexually violent person.  Pursuant to a 
negotiated agreement, Castillo entered an admission that he was 
a sexually violent person, and the State agreed to recommend 
supervised community placement.  The circuit court ordered 
Castillo placed in the community, in accordance with the 
statutory directive of placing such an individual in the least 
restrictive environment consistent with his needs.  See Wis. 
Stat. § 980.06(2)(b). 
¶4 
Numerous barriers arose in an attempt to place 
Castillo in the community, generally arising from public unrest 
surrounding Castillo's status as a sexually violent person and 
the unavailability of a facility in which to place him.  As a 
result, the circuit court granted the State's motion to reopen 
and modify the dispositional order.  A hearing was subsequently 
held, 
at 
which 
time 
the 
State 
withdrew 
its 
original 
recommendation and recommended institutional placement. The 
No. 95-1628 
 
3 
circuit court revised its order and committed Castillo to the 
Wisconsin Resource Center.  
¶5 
Castillo appealed, arguing that Wis. Stat. ch. 980 is 
unconstitutional 
as 
applied 
because 
he 
was 
not 
afforded 
placement in the least restrictive environment, and that the 
circuit court erred in ordering institutional placement where 
the State was unwilling to commit sufficient resources to 
provide community placement.  Alternatively, Castillo argued 
that the State was bound by its initial agreement to recommend 
community placement. 
¶6 
The court of appeals reversed the circuit court, 
concluding the admission agreement was akin to a plea agreement, 
and that the State violated Castillo's due process rights when 
it breached the agreement.  The court of appeals determined 
specific performance could not be accomplished and, therefore, 
remanded the case to allow Castillo to withdraw his admission.  
¶7 
Castillo petitioned this court for review, arguing 
that the court of appeals' decision was adverse because it did 
not address whether Wis. Stat. ch. 980 is unconstitutional as 
applied, nor did it address the lack of resource allocation for 
community placement.  Castillo contends that, although the court 
of appeals' decision was favorable to the extent it addressed 
the State's breach of the admission agreement, the outcome was 
adverse because his primary forms of relief were not considered, 
namely, whether the case should be dismissed or community 
placement ordered. 
No. 95-1628 
 
4 
¶8 
Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1), a party may 
petition this court "for review of an adverse decision of the 
court of appeals . . ."  In Neely v. State, 89 Wis. 2d  755,  
279 N.W.2d  255 (1979), this court addressed the issue of what 
constitutes a "decision" under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1).  
We held that "[t]he word decision, as used in the statutes and 
the rules, refers to the result (or disposition or mandate) 
reached by the court of appeals in the case."  Neely, 89 Wis. 2d 
at 758.  A court's ultimate decision is separate from the 
court's opinion, however, and a party may not petition this 
court for review if it merely "disagrees with the rationale 
expressed in the opinion."  Id.  
¶9 
Castillo 
argues 
he 
does 
not 
disagree 
with 
the 
rationale used by the court of appeals.  Rather, he disagrees 
with the outcome of the case.  Thus, he maintains that the court 
of appeals erred because it failed to address, and thereby 
denied, the primary forms of relief requested.  Remand was not 
the primary result Castillo was seeking, and the outcome was 
therefore adverse to him, he contends.   
¶10 We are not persuaded that the "outcome" of a case may 
be differentiated from the result, disposition, or mandate.  The 
court of appeals reversed the circuit court and remanded to 
allow Castillo to withdraw his admission, consistent with his 
alternative request for relief.  Therefore, the mandate, or 
outcome, was favorable to him, and he may not properly petition 
this court for review. 
No. 95-1628 
 
5 
¶11 Castillo did not receive an adverse decision regarding 
his claims of improper placement and inadequate resources, 
because the court of appeals made no decision on those issues.  
Those issues were not addressed and denied; rather, the court 
found it wholly unnecessary to reach them.   
¶12 The court of appeals was not required to address each 
of the issues raised and each of the forms of relief requested 
by Castillo.  An appellate court should decide cases on the 
narrowest possible grounds.  See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 
688, 703, 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989).  Consistent with this 
rule 
is 
the 
recognition 
that 
a 
court 
will 
not 
reach 
constitutional issues where the resolution of other issues 
disposes of an appeal.  See Grogan v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 109 
Wis. 2d 75, 77 325 N.W.2d 82 (Ct. App. 1982). 
¶13 We 
recognize 
there 
are 
potentially 
compelling 
constitutional issues that may subsequently arise in this case. 
 However, the court of appeals has reversed the circuit court's 
order of commitment and remanded the case to allow Castillo to 
withdraw his admission.  Because this case does not present an 
adverse decision by the court of appeals, as claimed by Castillo 
in his petition for review, we conclude review was improvidently 
granted. 
By the Court.—The petition for review is dismissed.