2012 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations
980. Sexually violent person commitments.
980.09 Petition for discharge.
980.09 Petition for discharge.
(1) A committed person may petition the committing court for discharge at any time. The court shall deny the petition under this section without a hearing unless the petition alleges facts from which the court or jury may conclude the person's condition has changed since the date of his or her initial commitment order so that the person does not meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person.
(2) The court shall review the petition within 30 days and may hold a hearing to determine if it contains facts from which the court or jury may conclude that the person does not meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person. In determining under this subsection whether facts exist that might warrant such a conclusion, the court shall consider any current or past reports filed under s. 980.07, relevant facts in the petition and in the state's written response, arguments of counsel, and any supporting documentation provided by the person or the state. If the court determines that the petition does not contain facts from which a court or jury may conclude that the person does not meet the criteria for commitment, the court shall deny the petition. If the court determines that facts exist from which a court or jury could conclude the person does not meet criteria for commitment the court shall set the matter for hearing.
(3) The court shall hold a hearing within 90 days of the determination that the petition contains facts from which the court or jury may conclude that the person does not meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person. The state has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the person meets the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person.
(4) If the court or jury is satisfied that the state has not met its burden of proof under sub. (3), the petitioner shall be discharged from the custody of the department. If the court or jury is satisfied that the state has met its burden of proof under sub. (3), the court may proceed under s. 980.08 (4) to determine whether to modify the petitioner's existing commitment order by authorizing supervised release.
History: 1993 a. 479; 1999 a. 9; 2003 a. 187; 2005 a. 434; s. 13.92 (1) (bm) 2.
Persons committed under ch. 980 must be afforded the right to request a jury for discharge hearings under this section. State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279, 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995), 94-2356.
Progress in treatment is one way of showing that a person is not still a sexually violent person under (former) sub. (2) (a). A new diagnosis is another. A new diagnosis need not attack the original finding that an individual was sexually violent, but focuses on the present and is evidence of whether an individual is still a sexually violent person. State v. Pocan, 2003 WI App 233, 267 Wis. 2d 953, 671 N.W.2d 680, 02-3342.
Under sub. (1), the circuit court engages in a paper review of the petition only, including its attachments, to determine whether it alleges facts from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the petitioner does not meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person. This review is a limited one aimed at assessing the sufficiency of the allegations in the petition. If the petition does allege sufficient facts, the circuit court proceeds to a review under sub. (2). State v. Arends, 2010 WI 46, 325 Wis. 2d 1, 784 N.W.2d 513, 08-0052.
Sub. (2) requires the circuit court to review specific items enumerated in that subsection. The court need not seek out items not already within the record. Nevertheless, it may request additional enumerated items not previously submitted, and also has the discretion to conduct a hearing to aid in its determination. The court's task is to determine whether the petition and the additional supporting materials before it contain facts from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the petitioner does not meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person. State v. Arends, 2010 WI 46, 325 Wis. 2d 1, 784 N.W.2d 513, 08-0052.
Sub. (2) explicitly prescribes a different procedure than that for summary judgment set forth in s. 802.08. As such, summary judgment is not available in discharge proceedings under this section. The state's burden of proof is implicated only during a hearing under sub. (3). When a trial court granted summary judgment prior to a hearing under sub. (3), no one could say with any certainty whether the state possessed enough evidence to meet its burden of proof. State v. Allison, 2010 WI App 103, 329 Wis. 2d 129, 789 N.W.2d 120, 09-1232.
A research paper is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a sex offender's condition has changed. New actuarial research, absent a psychological examination, is not enough to demonstrate that an offender is no longer a sexually violent person. State v. Richard, 2011 WI App 66, 333 Wis. 2d 708, 799 N.W.2d 509, 10-1188.
The only reasonable construction of the "condition has changed" in sub. (1) is that it encompasses all the changes that a fact finder could determine result in the person not meeting the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person. This language includes not only a change in the person himself or herself, but also a change in the professional knowledge or research used to evaluate a person's mental disorder or dangerousness if the change is such that a fact finder could conclude the person does not meet the criteria for commitment. The circuit court may not deny a discharge petition without a hearing if the petition alleges facts from which a fact finder could determine that, as a result of any one of those changes, the person does not meet the criteria for a sexually violent person. State v. Ermers, 2011 WI App 113, 336 Wis. 2d 451, 802 N.W.2d 540, 10-2634.
When determining whether to hold a hearing on a petition for discharge, the circuit court must determine whether the petitioner has set forth new evidence, not considered by a prior trier of fact, from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the petitioner does not meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person. An expert's opinion that is not based on some new fact, new professional knowledge, or new research is not sufficient for a new discharge hearing under sub. (2). A doctor's further reflection on past scoring of a test is not sufficient for a new discharge hearing because it is not new professional knowledge or research about how to predict dangerousness. State v. Schulpius, 2012 WI App 134, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 11-2565.
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Wisconsin may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.
