Court Opinion

ID: 9576081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:20:39.45669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:19.664543
License: Public Domain

GARTZKE, P.J.
(dissenting). In my view, Saenz correctly interprets our decision in State ex rel. Hansen v. Dane County Cir. Ct., 181 Wis. 2d 993, 513 N.W.2d 139 (Ct. App. 1994). The quotation the majority provides from that opinion expressed our rationale for granting relief to Hansen. That rationale is our holding.
We should have certified Saenz's case to the supreme court because Hansen should be overruled. It is at least doubtful whether the court of appeals can overrule its own decisions. We are bound by our published precedents. State v. Lee, 157 Wis. 2d 126, 130 n.4, 458 N.W.2d 562, 563 (Ct. App. 1990). Our dicta does not bind us. Id. But the rationale for a disposition, as in Hansen, is not dictum.
I trust that Saenz will petition for review. The supreme court should grant it. If our decision in Hansen is right, then the Wisconsin Parole Commission erred. If we erred in Hansen, then the commission was right.