Court Opinion

ID: 9695071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:05:34.965657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:08.066071
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 46. (concurring). I write separately not to criticize the majority *258opinion for what it does say, but rather to point out what it does not say. For the second time in three years, a majority of this court avoids addressing an issue of importance, namely, whether a parolee has a right to the assistance of counsel, when filing an administrative appeal to the Division of Hearings and Appeals from a parole revocation decision.
¶ 47. Because this important issue affects many hearings and will arise again, and because the parties have briefed the issue, I conclude that the court should address it and hold that a right to counsel exists when filing an administrative appeal.
H-<
¶ 48. I would address the issue of the right to the assistance of counsel when filing an administrative appeal even though it is not dispositive. To determine whether to address issues that are raised, argued, and briefed by the parties but are not necessary to the disposition of a case, I would apply the rationale for addressing the merits of a moot issue. The court should decide an issue if it "(1) is of great public importance; (2) occurs so frequently that a definitive decision is necessary to guide circuit courts; (3) is likely to arise again and a decision of the court would alleviate uncertainty; or (4) will likely be repeated, but evades appellate review because the appellate review process cannot be completed or even undertaken in time to have a practical effect on the parties."1
¶ 49. A number of these factors militate in favor of deciding in the present case whether a parolee has a right to the assistance of counsel when filing an admin*259istrative appeal of a parole revocation decision. The decision to revoke parole implicates the safety of the public and the fairness of the procedures and is of great importance to both the petitioner and the public. Furthermore, parole revocation proceedings, and subsequent appeals, are a daily administrative matter.
¶ 50. In addition, both petitioners and the State briefed the issue with sufficient thoroughness for this court to render a decision.2 I cannot agree with the majority opinion that we should save this question for yet another day.
I — I
¶ 51. Having concluded that the court should address the question of the right to counsel to file an administrative appeal, I now turn to answering the question. A brief history of the litigation on this issue is informative.
¶ 52. The right to counsel for filing an administrative appeal was first addressed by the court of appeals in State ex rel. Mentek v. Schwarz, 2000 WI App 96, 235 Wis. 2d 143, 612 N.W.2d 748 (Mentek I). In that case, counsel represented Mentek at his probation revocation hearing,3 but following an adverse decision, *260counsel wrote Mentek a letter stating that an appeal would have no merit.4 Mentek then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court.5
¶ 53. The State moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Mentek had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.6 The circuit court granted the State's motion.7 In a split decision, the court of appeals concluded that Wis. Admin. Code § HA 2.05(3)(f)8 does not grant a petitioner the right to counsel beyond the probation revocation hearing.9 The dissenting opinion construed the Code as providing the right to counsel to file an administrative appeal.10
*261¶ 54. On review of Mentek I, this court reversed the court of appeals' decision on narrow grounds. State ex rel. Mentek v. Schwarz, 2001 WI 32, 242 Wis. 2d 94, 624 N.W.2d 150 (Mentek II). Instead of addressing Mentek's claim to counsel, this court focused on whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies should be applied to Mentek's certiorari action.11 This court held that although Mentek failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the circuit court could still exercise jurisdiction over his petition for writ of certiorari.12
¶ 55. I concurred in Mentek II, addressing the right-to-counsel question left open by the majority opinion. In doing so, I adopted the reasoning of Judge Brown's dissent in Mentek 7.13
¶ 56. Both Judge Brown and I concluded that the most reasonable interpretation of Wis. Admin. Code § HA 2.05(3) and § HA 2.05(8)14 is that a parolee has the right to the assistance of counsel in filing an administrative appeal. I will not repeat our reasoning here. It is available in both published opinions.
*262¶ 57. On my review of Mentek I and Mentek II, I am persuaded that Judge Brown and I were correct. I am pleased to report that the State is now also persuaded of the correctness of these opinions and has adopted their reasoning and conclusions.
¶ 58. After analyzing the Code and statutes, the State's brief concludes that "[a]lthough the State argued in Mentek that there is no right to counsel for filing an administrative appeal, the State now respectfully withdraws from that position."15 The State's brief asserts that "read together, Wis. Admin. Code § HA 2.05(3) and (8) and Wis. Stat. § 977.05(6)(h) and (i) reasonably support the proposition that the statutory right to the assistance of counsel at a final revocation hearing extends to the assistance of counsel for timely filing an administrative appeal."16
¶ 59. The State's brief points out three questions that may arise in the future if the court recognizes a statutory right to counsel to timely file an administrative appeal from a revocation. The three questions the State's brief poses are as follows:
If there is a statutory right to counsel to timely file an administrative appeal from a revocation, is there a companion right to effective assistance of counsel in the presentation of the substantive arguments and supporting materials on administrative appeal? Moreover, must counsel always file an administrative appeal upon the parolee's request, even if counsel believes an administrative appeal would be meritless? If the answers are yes, what standards of review apply, especially with *263respect to the question of prejudice from counsel's alleged deficient performance?17
¶ 60. The State's brief carefully explains, however, that this court need not now decide the foregoing questions in the present cases. The defendants in the present cases had, according to the State's brief, timely filed administrative appeals with the assistance of counsel, and neither parolee is alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in the handling of an administrative appeal.18
¶ 61. I agree with the State that answering the question about the right to counsel at an administrative appeal will doubtless produce further questions. But experience shows that ignoring a question does not ordinarily make it go away. Delay in answering the issue presented here and in Mentek I and Mentek II, only means uncertainty and additional expense and delay for the State and defendants.
¶ 62. For the reasons set forth, I conclude that the majority opinion should have reached the issue of whether a parolee has a right to the assistance of counsel when filing an administrative appeal of a revocation decision, and it should have concluded, as the State has, that such a right exists.
¶ 63. For the reasons set forth, I concur.

 State v. Morford, 2004 WI 5, ¶ 7, 268 Wis. 2d 300, 674 N.W.2d 349.

 The petitioners argued for this right, relying on the dissenting and concurring opinions in State ex rel. Mentek v. Schwarz, 2000 WI App 96, 235 Wis. 2d 143, 612 N.W.2d 746 (Mentek I), and State ex rel. Mentek v. Schwarz, 2001 WI 32, 242 Wis. 2d 94, 624 N.W.2d 150 (Mentek II), as well as on public policy grounds of the desirability of a bright line rule. See Petitioners-Appellants' Brief at 23-47.
The State also argued at length for the right to counsel at the final revocation hearing. See Respondent's Brief at 18-22.

 Mentek I, 235 Wis. 2d 143, ¶ 4.

 Mentek I, 235 Wis. 2d 143, ¶ 5.

 Mentek I, 235 Wis. 2d 143, ¶ 6.

 Mentek I, 235 Wis. 2d 143, ¶ 8.

 Mentek I, 235 Wis. 2d 143, ¶ 8.

 Wisconsin Admin. Code § HA 2.05 (3) (Sept. 2001) enumerates a parolee's rights as follows:
(3) CLIENT'S RIGHTS. The client's rights at the hearing include:
(a) The right to be present;
(b) The right to deny the allegation;
(c) The right to be heard and to present witnesses;
(d) The right to present documentary evidence;
(e) The right to question witnesses;
(f) The right to the assistance of counsel;
(g) The right to waive the hearing;
(h) The right to receive a written decision stating the reasons for it based upon the evidence presented; and
(i) The right to appeal the decision in accordance with sub.(8).

 Mentek I, 235 Wis. 2d 143, ¶ 17.

 Mentek I, 235 Wis. 2d 143, ¶ 25 (Brown, EJ., dissenting).

 Mentek II, 242 Wis. 2d 94, ¶ 2.

 Mentek II, 242 Wis. 2d 94, ¶ 17.

 Mentek II, 242 Wis. 2d 94, ¶ 19 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring).

 Wisconsin Admin. Code § HA 2.05(8)(a) and (b) (Sept. 2001) provide as follows:
(8) Appeal, (a) The client, the client's attorney, if any, or the department representative may appeal the administrative law judge's decision by filing a written appeal with arguments and supporting materials, if any, with the administrator within 10 days of the date of the administrative law judge's written decision.
Oí) The appellant shall submit a copy of the appeal to the other party who has 7 days to respond.

 Respondent's Brief at 25.

 Id

 Id.

 Respondent's Brief at 26.