Court Opinion

ID: 9673457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:12:06.096351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:22.359892
License: Public Domain

SCHUDSON, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). Although I agree with the majority's conclusion regarding Johnson's plea, I note that this particular trial court, once again, has generated an otherwise unnecessary challenge to the sufficiency of a guilty plea *206by employing a conversational colloquy that just barely touches all the bases.
I disagree with the majority's conclusion regarding Johnson's motion to modify his sentence.
Johnson asks that we remand for the trial court's consideration of his sentence-modification motion. He asserts that he is not receiving adequate medical care for a life-threatening condition; that the prison physician has denied him the liver transplant his doctor says he needs to survive. He concedes that, under State v. Michels, 150 Wis. 2d 94, 441 N.W.2d 278 (Ct. App. 1989), deterioration in health generally will be a matter for the department of corrections and the parole board, not the sentencing court. Id. at 99-100, 441 N.W.2d at 280-81. He fairly argues, however, that Michels "does not apply where the department of corrections provides fatally inadequate care."
The State does not disagree. The State argues, however, that Johnson's claim is "at best premature" because he has failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the needed treatment actually has been denied. The State further argues that denial of a liver transplant would not frustrate the purpose of the original sentence given that the trial court was aware of Johnson's serious condition and, in part for that reason, ordered only fifteen years of a potential forty-year sentence. The State, and now the majority, cut too fine a line.
As the majority acknowledges, the sentencing court told Johnson, "[Y]ou have a medical condition that requires a great deal of medical attention, which I'm sure you'll be able to get while you're in prison." Majority op. at 204. Johnson contends, however, that despite that judicial assurance and despite his *207physician's recommendation, the prison doctor has refused to authorize a life-saving procedure.
The State, the trial court, and the majority declare that Johnson's motion does not provide enough to gain a hearing. What more do they need? The trial court stated it was "sure" Johnson would "be able to get [required medical attention] while in prison." Johnson now says the department of corrections is denying him the medical attention required to save his life.
I do not know whether Johnson's claim has merit. Without an evidentiary hearing, I can't know. The majority can't know either and, without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court can't find out. This court should require the trial court to find out. Johnson needs a hearing, before it's too late.