Court Opinion

ID: 9718585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:27:31.439525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:00.524820
License: Public Domain

PEE CUEIAM.
On November 30, 1976, in a published opinion, State ex rel. Terry v. Schubert, 74 Wis.2d 487, 247 N.W.2d 109 (1976), this court reviewed an order and judgment of the circuit court for Dodge county which dismissed the writ of habeas corpus by which petitioner Terry sought a discharge from a commitment under ch. 975, Stats., the Wisconsin Sex Crimes Act. The judgment of this court reads as follows:
“Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded for entry of order consistent with the declaration of rights as per decision herein and ordering respondent to provide petitioner within a reasonable time a hearing under Sec. 975.09, Stats., which meets the procedure requirements contained herein.”
Thereafter the Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Services petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review this court’s judgment. By order dated November 3, 1977, the Supreme Court granted the petition, and ordered that the *695judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin be vacated and that the “cause be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin to consider whether its judgment is based upon federal or state constitutional grounds, or both. See California v. Krivda, 409 U.S. 33 (1972).” Percy v. Terry, 434 U.S. 808, 98 S. Ct. 40 (1977).
Upon receiving the remand order from the United States Supreme Court, we issued an order vacating our judgment of November 30, 1976, directing the Circuit Court for Dodge County to return the record on appeal, and establishing a briefing schedule.
The facts involved in this case were set forth in our original opinion and need not be repeated in detail at this time. Terry was convicted of two counts of rape and one count of theft. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of Health and Social Services that Terry was in need of specialized treatment as a sex deviate, the trial court ordered him committed to the department under sec. 975.06, Stats. Terry received an indeterminate five-year sentence on the theft conviction, to be served concurrently with the commitment.
After serving approximately three years at the Wisconsin State Prison, Terry was transferred to Central State Hospital. Sec. 975.08(2), Stats. Subsequent to the mandatory release date on his theft conviction, Terry commenced a habeas corpus proceeding, alleging that he was not suffering mental aberrations due to sexual psychopathy and that continuing his confinement violated his rights.
Sec. 975.11, Stats., provides that the department shall discharge any person committed to it under the Sex Crimes Act “as soon as in its opinion there is a reasonable probability that he can be given full liberty without danger to the public. . . .” Terry challenged the constitutionality of the procedures provided to review *696commitment between the time of initial commitment and the expiration of the maximum term of confinement. Sec. 975.09, Stats., provides as follows:
“The department shall make periodic examinations of all persons within its control under s. 975.06 for the purpose of determining whether existing orders and dispositions in individual cases should be modified or continued in force. These examinations may be made as frequently as the department considers desirable and shall be made with respect to every person at intervals not exceeding one year. The department shall keep written records of all examinations and of conclusions predicated thereon, and of all orders concerning the disposition or treatment of every person under its control. Failure of the department to examine a person committed to it or to make periodic examination shall not entitle him to a discharge from the control of the department, but shall entitle him to petition the committing court for an order of discharge, and the court shall discharge him unless it appears in accordance with s. 975.13 that there is necessity for further control.”
The trial court dismissed Terry’s petition on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the mental status or treatment needs of one committed as a sex offender during the course of the commitment. The petitioner appealed.
In State ex rel. Terry v. Schubert, 74 Wis.2d 487, 247 N.W.2d 109 (1976), this court noted that the department “has shown no formalized procedures which are followed in the periodic examination provided by sec. 975.09.” 74 Wis.2d at 496. We concluded that the sex offender’s “interest in release from commitment, once the basis for that commitment no longer exists, is clearly a valuable one, the determination for which calls for some orderly procedure.” 74 Wis.2d at 497. We held that the following minimal due process rights are applicable to the periodic examination procedures provided by sec. 975.09, Stats.:
*697“. . . (1) written notice of the hearing; (2) disclosure of the evidentiary material which will he considered by the hearing body; (3) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, in the absence of good cause for not allowing confrontation; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (6) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for refusing parole or discharge. Morrissey v. Brewer, supra [408 U.S. 471] at 489.” 74 Wis.2d at 502a-502b.
The decision of the department is reviewable by the committing court on certiorari. Id. at 498.
The issue on remand is whether the judgment of this court is based upon federal or state constitutional grounds, or both.
Pursuant to the mandate of the United States Supreme Court hereinabove quoted, we have reexamined our opinion in the subject case, have read the briefs filed by the parties and amicus curiae, and have reviewed the record. In reaching our initial decision we acted solely by compulsion of the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution. Inasmuch as we deem it unnecessary to alter or amend our prior decision, we reiterate and reinstate that decision in its entirety as filed and modified.