Court Opinion

ID: 9517999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:40:11.675439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:45.713034
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
¶ 4. (concurring). I agree that the State's motion for reconsideration in this case should be denied and that the opinion should be clarified. I write to place the court's corrections in the context of the State's motion for reconsideration.
¶ 5. The State requested two corrections:
¶ 6. First, the State requested that the reference to Wis. Stat. § 980.05 in paragraph 12 of the opinion be deleted as a basis for finding that Seibert has a constitutional right to counsel on his first appeal as a matter of right. The State gives three reasons for this correction:
(1) The last sentence in § 980.05(lm) may, but need not, be interpreted as applicable only to trial. The State therefore requests that this court not define the scope of § 980.05(lm) without discussing all the possible interpretations of the section and explaining why one interpretation is adopted rather than another potential interpretation.
(2) The way in which the court cites § 980.05(lm) suggests that the court views the statute as creating constitutional rights. The State argues that this interpretation of the statute appears to be inconsistent with State v. Smith, 229 Wis. 2d 720, 731, 600 N.W.2d 258 (Ct. App. 1999), in which the court of appeals characterizes § 980.05(lm) as creating statutory rights.
*705(3) If § 980.05(lm) creates only a statutory right to counsel, its citation is inconsistent with Part III of the opinion that makes Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), applicable to ch. 980 appeals.
¶ 7. The correction the court adopts makes clear, as the State requested, that a ch. 980 individual has a constitutional, in contrast to a statutory, right of counsel in bringing his or her first appeal as a matter of right.
¶ 8. Second, the State requested the correction that the court adopts in paragraph 19, because the State concedes that prejudice would be presumed if Seibert proved deficient performance.
¶ 9. For the reasons set forth, I write separately.