Document: 405 U.S. 504 92 S.Ct. 1048 31 L.Ed.2d 394 Donald Gilbert HUMPHREY, Petitioner,v.Elmer O. CADY, Warden. No. 70—5004. Argued Dec. 7, 1971. Decided March 22, 1972. Syllabus Petitioner was convicted of contributing to the delinquency a minor, misdemeanor punishable by maximum sentence one year. In lieu sentence, he committed 'sex deviate facility' in state prison, for potentially indefinite period, pursuant Wisconsin Sex Crimes Act. That Act provides that when court finds person 'probably directly motivated desire sexual excitement,' it may commit defendant Department Health and Social Services social, physical, mental examination, if recommends specialized treatment, must hold hearing on need therefor. If State establishes treatment period equal authorized crime. At end petition renewal commitment five years. After notice hearing, renew discharge would be 'dangerous public.' Further five-year renewals similarly obtained. is subject order, obtained at expiration his one-year sentence. He challenges original procedures. argues compulsory under Act, least after commitment, essentially equivalent Wisconsin's Mental which jury determinations, without action deprives him protection laws. also claims denied effective assistance counsel both hearings opportunity present confront State's witnesses hearing. charges due process violations as result prison rather than hospital, provided argued new constitute double jeopardy indicated broad constitutional challenge However, no further petitioner's behalf taken. The District Court dismissed habeas corpus grounds were lacking merit they had been waived failure them adequately courts. Appeals refused certify probable cause an appeal, ground frivolous. Held: 1. Petitioner's are substantial enough warrant evidentiary Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 107, 86 760, 15 620; Specht Patterson, 386 605, 87 1209, 18 326. Pp. 508—514. (a) proceedings bear resemblance post-sentencing Baxstrom, supra, Supreme has held even initial not just sentencing alternative but independent comparable 508—511. (b) apparently mutually exclusive, claim persuasive develops remand petitioner deprived determination or other procedural protections merely arbitrary decision seek other. P. 512. (c) Remand will provide ample develop facts relevant mootness well claims. 512—514. 2. Federal barred every default, required determine whether knowingly intelligently made deliberate strategic waiver court. 514 517. Reversed remanded Court. Irvin B. Charne, Milwaukee, Wis., petitioner. George L. Frederick, Madison, respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion 1 Wis.Stat.Ann. § 947.15 (1958). facility,' located time, 959.15 (1958), amended, c. 975 (1971). this federal corpus, seeks validity statutory procedures conditions confinement. (1) most part matter law, (2) 28 U.S.C. 2253, relying solely lacked merit.1 We granted certiorari consider statute. 401 973, 91 1202, 322 have concluded necessary resolve claims, question waiver; consequently we case hearing.2 2 * any crime, crime excitement.' such motivation, Public Welfare (now Services) examination. defendant's 'mental physical aberrations,' treatment. preponderance evidence, order renewing public because (his) deficiency, disorder abnormality.' limitation. 3 presently His principal relate procedure resulted commitment. addition, procedures, 4 A review compels us conclude light Court's decisions 620 (1966), 326 (1967). Thus reject contrary conclusion Appeals, implicit its deny leave appeal. 5 A. One arguments Wis.Stat.Ann., 51 (1957); right meets standards 51.03; 6 substantially same argument advanced prisoner who New York law trial, penal This State, having generally available persons could not, consistent with Equal Protection Clause, arbitrarily withhold from few. U.S., 110—112, S.Ct., 762—763. recognized prisoner's criminal record might factor evaluating condition, determining type care appropriate condition; however, justify depriving basic mentally ill some kind 7 Since 1880, relied decide confine psychiatric treatment.3 Like most, all, States similar legislation, confinement medical judgment treatable, social legal potential doing harm, himself others, great massive curtailment liberty.4 making determination, serves critical function introducing into lay judgment, reflecting values community, concerning kinds harm confining treatment.5 8 Commitment appears require precisely involving mixture judgments.6 so (and properly inquiry remand), then proper inquire what justification exists afforded 9 Respondent discrimination triggered conviction; sentencing; does safeguards civil proceeding. arguably force respect imposed limited duration permissible sentence.7 can carry little weight, subsequent proceedings, orders based findings fact, way nature post-sentence issue Baxstrom. Moreover, expressly simply alternative, held, anticipating (1967), Huebner 33 Wis.2d 505, 521—530, 147 N.W.2d 646, 654—658 While grounded considerations process, noted carefully relevance Clause decision.8 10 An sought special characteristic sex offenders, render uniquely inappropriate unnecessary. It appears, exclusive; 'aberrations' warranting latter amount illness' former.9 seem especially protections, statute other.10 11 factual questions addition lack several aspects led counsel, witnesses. These tied inextricably possible rights clearly requires exploration remand, see infra, 514—517. 12 adequacy shows represented App. 12, thus arises ever fact Specht, now well. that, there finding needed sexually motivated, prerequisite invocation whole process. defect rendered moot intervening hearing.11 be, continuing effects cannot remedied mere attack order.12 On should threshold mootness, determines merits these before it, proceed questions. 13 Finally, place character objects Act; contends notwithstanding unit labeled 'Sex Deviate Facility.' matters, view, aspect become moot, released parole, n. 2, established facility parole revoked.13 parties II 14 Plainly, then, accept too frivolous And Court, respondent presses here. failing argument, somewhat complicated history case. first constitutionality beyond period. appointed prohibited second punishment single offense, she trial judge adjourned permit brief issues. When failed submit brief, take petitioner, bare sufficient support confinement.14 No appeal taken order.15 16 subsequently filed time only grant relief prisoners.16 summarily response us, represent identical initiated proceedings.17 17 petition, prepared alleges, jeopardy, referring specifically to, inter alia, prison. file amounted abandon claims; justified denial post-conviction relief; operated bar agree bypass remedies consideration conclude, given facts. Accordingly, point, ripe determination. 19 repeatedly plain default bars relief. Title §§ 2254(b), (c), exhaust remedies, their application those still open applicant files Fay Noia, 372 391, 434—435, 83 822, 846—847, 837 (1963); Picard Connor, 404 270, 272 3, 509, 510, 30 438 met requirements exhaustion rule, inasmuch direct him, highest court.18 20 discretion deliberately bypassed orderly courts, forfeited remedies. 438—439, 848—849. But product understanding knowing himself, necessarily bound counsel. ordinarily case, reason counsel's extent knowledge participation decision. find evidence intelligent 21 reversed accordance opinion. ordered. 22 remanded. 23 POWELL REHNQUIST took said pertinent part: 'Plaintiff various entitled course separate proceeding conviction continuation proceeding.' App., 58. filed, custody Secretary Services. change substitution warden respondent, accomplished motion Rule 49 remand. jury-trial provision appeared 266, Wis.Laws pp. 299, 301; compare Wis.Rev.Stat. 593, p. 208 (1878), Wis.Rev.Stat., 114 (1883 Supp.). authorizes ill, 'proper treatment.' Wis.Stat. Ann. 51.02(5), 51.03 (1957). treatment,' definition illness itself, contained Interstate Compact Health, recently adopted Wisconsin, many States: "Mental means disease afflicted own welfare, welfare community.' (Emphasis added.) 51.75, Art. II(f) (Supp.1971). 1926 Legislature voted eliminate request society, Governor vetoed bill. Again 1947 attempt trial. legislative committee reported juries often experts thought appropriate. Wis.Stat.1947, 51, general comment interim committee, 802. legislature do away trials, indeed enacted year psychopaths,' paralleling 51.37(4). Not until 1951, passage did disappear legislation governing offenders. Wis.Stat.1951, 340.485(14)(a). otherwise eligible 'specialized 975.06(1)—(2) (1971), restated 959.15(5)—(6), adding judicial 646 person's 975.14 formerly 959.15(14)(b) Two courts appeals implied contrary, Matthews Hardy, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 39, 420 F.2d 607 (1969), cert. denied, 397 1010, 90 1231, 25 423 (1970), United ex rel. Schuster 410 1071 (CA2), 396 847, 81, 24 96 (1969). intimate view objections discussed 513. Following Huebner, rests alernatively Due Process Clause. has, rejected either extend offenders Buchanan 41 460, 164 253 rejecting claim, distinctions elusive development raised, decided, Hill Burke, 289 F.Supp. 921 (W.D.Wis.1968), aff'd, 422 1195 (CA7 1970). Tr. Oral Arg. 22; Respondent's Supplemental Memorandum, Feb. 25, 1971, 3—4. Compare criteria 6, supra. supra 111, 762, Cross Harris, 135 259, 262, 418 1095, 1098 (1969); Millard 132 146, 152, 406 964, 970 (1968). See Stroetz 195, 136 829 (1965). For example, successfully improper continued i.e., . Brief 28—30, Appendix 140 156. largely introduce behalf. connection noteworthy show introduced either; moreover, burden proof proceedings. Goetsch 45 285, 172 688 (1969) (decided case). eppeal 975.16, 959.15(16). 292 replaced comprehensive statute, 974.06 ascertain presented petition. There is, course, requirement repetitious applications Wilwording Swenson, 249, 407, (1971); Brown Allen, 344 443, 448 73 397, 402, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953). distinct already fairly pass claim; so, forum effectively claim. all treated Civil Rights 42 1983, required.

Category: 0