State v. Heriberto Castillo, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 95-1628 Complete Title of Case: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Petitioner, v. Heriberto Castillo, Jr., Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Reported at: 205 Wis. 2d 592, 556 N.W.2d 425 (Ct. App. 1996) PUBLISHED Opinion Filed: Submitted on Briefs: Oral Argument: Source of APPEAL COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: November 7, 1997 September 3, 1997 Circuit Waukesha Marianne E. Becker JUSTICES: Concurred: Dissented: Not Participating: ATTORNEYS: For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs and oral argument by Keith A. Findley of the University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison. For the plaintiff-respondent-cross petitioner the cause was argued by Warren D. Weinstein, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, attorney general. No. 95-1628 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 95-1628 STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT FILED State of Wisconsin, NOV 7, 1997 Plaintiff-RespondentCross Petitioner, Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI v. Heriberto Castillo, Jr., Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW of a decision of the court of appeals. Dismissed as improvidently granted. ¶1 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. Petitioner seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's order committing him as a sexually violent person pursuant to Wis. Stat. ch. 980 (1993-94)1 and remanding the case to allow him to withdraw his admission that he is a sexually violent person. After thorough review of the record and the briefs of the parties, and after having heard oral argument, we conclude this case does not present an adverse decision by the court of appeals as claimed by petitioner in his petition for review. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as improvidently granted. 1 All future references to Wis. Stats. will be to the 199394 version of the statutes unless otherwise indicated. 1 No. 95-1628 ¶2 We recognize that the parties have expended a great deal of time and effort in presenting this case; therefore, we will not dismiss the petition without explanation. See Hoskins v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 180 Wis. 2d 534, 536, 509 N.W.2d 432 (1994) (Abrahamson, J., dissenting). A very brief rendition of the facts is therefore appropriate. ¶3 On ("Castillo") March was 29, adjudged 1990, delinquent first degree sexual assault. from the juvenile Heriberto based Castillo, on two Jr. counts of Prior to his scheduled release correction facility, the State filed a petition under Wis. Stat. § 980.02(4)(a), requesting an order detaining Castillo as a sexually violent person. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, Castillo entered an admission that he was a sexually violent person, and the State agreed to recommend supervised Castillo community placed in placement. the The community, circuit in court accordance ordered with the statutory directive of placing such an individual in the least restrictive environment consistent with his needs. See Wis. Stat. § 980.06(2)(b). ¶4 Numerous barriers arose in an attempt to place Castillo in the community, generally arising from public unrest surrounding Castillo's status as a sexually violent person and the unavailability of a facility in which to place him. As a result, the circuit court granted the State's motion to reopen and modify the dispositional order. held, at which recommendation and time the State recommended 2 A hearing was subsequently withdrew institutional its original placement. The No. 95-1628 circuit court revised its order and committed Castillo to the Wisconsin Resource Center. ¶5 Castillo appealed, arguing that Wis. Stat. ch. 980 is unconstitutional as applied because he was not afforded placement in the least restrictive environment, and that the circuit court erred in ordering institutional placement where the State provide was unwilling community to commit placement. sufficient Alternatively, resources Castillo to argued that the State was bound by its initial agreement to recommend community placement. ¶6 The court of appeals reversed the circuit court, concluding the admission agreement was akin to a plea agreement, and that the State violated Castillo's due process rights when it breached the agreement. The court of appeals determined specific performance could not be accomplished and, therefore, remanded the case to allow Castillo to withdraw his admission. ¶7 Castillo petitioned this court for review, arguing that the court of appeals' decision was adverse because it did not address whether Wis. Stat. ch. 980 is unconstitutional as applied, nor did it address the lack of resource allocation for community placement. Castillo contends that, although the court of appeals' decision was favorable to the extent it addressed the State's breach of the admission agreement, the outcome was adverse because his primary forms of relief were not considered, namely, whether the case should placement ordered. 3 be dismissed or community No. 95-1628 ¶8 Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1), a party may petition this court "for review of an adverse decision of the court of appeals . . ." 279 N.W.2d In Neely v. State, 89 Wis. 2d 755, 255 (1979), this court addressed the issue of what constitutes a "decision" under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1). We held that "[t]he word decision, as used in the statutes and the rules, refers to the result (or disposition reached by the court of appeals in the case." at 758. court's court A court's ultimate opinion, however, for review if it Castillo is a party and may merely expressed in the opinion." ¶9 decision "disagrees or mandate) Neely, 89 Wis. 2d separate not with from petition the the this rationale Id. argues he does not rationale used by the court of appeals. disagree with the Rather, he disagrees with the outcome of the case. Thus, he maintains that the court of failed appeals erred because it to address, denied, the primary forms of relief requested. and thereby Remand was not the primary result Castillo was seeking, and the outcome was therefore adverse to him, he contends. ¶10 We are not persuaded that the "outcome" of a case may be differentiated from the result, disposition, or mandate. court of appeals reversed the circuit court and remanded The to allow Castillo to withdraw his admission, consistent with his alternative request for relief. Therefore, the mandate, or outcome, was favorable to him, and he may not properly petition this court for review. 4 No. 95-1628 ¶11 his Castillo did not receive an adverse decision regarding claims of improper placement and inadequate resources, because the court of appeals made no decision on those issues. Those issues were not addressed and denied; rather, the court found it wholly unnecessary to reach them. ¶12 The court of appeals was not required to address each of the issues raised and each of the forms of relief requested by Castillo. An appellate court should decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds. See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703, 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989). rule is the constitutional recognition issues disposes of an appeal. where that the a Consistent with this court resolution will of not reach other issues See Grogan v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 109 Wis. 2d 75, 77 325 N.W.2d 82 (Ct. App. 1982). ¶13 We recognize there are potentially compelling constitutional issues that may subsequently arise in this case. However, the court of appeals has reversed the circuit court's order of commitment and remanded the case to allow Castillo to withdraw his admission. Because this case does not present an adverse decision by the court of appeals, as claimed by Castillo in his petition for review, we conclude review was improvidently granted. By the Court. The petition for review is dismissed. 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
