The majority opinion rejected Greer’s claimed violation of substantive due process because that required proof that the DOC engaged in deliberate action or indifference. See .eg.State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, 287 Wis. 2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495. Here, the DOC’s failure to keep accurate records was mere negligence.
State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, affirming, 2004 WI App 39For Schulpius: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee AppellateIssue/Holding1: Failure to place Schulpius on court-ordered supervised release did not “shock the conscience,” hence did not violate substantive due process, where the failure occurred despite good-faith, substantial efforts to comply with the order, ¶31. Issue/Holding2: Failure to place Schulpius on court-ordered supervised release violated procedural due process.
State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, affirming, 2004 WI App 39For Schulpius: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee AppellateIssue/Holding: An order granting the State’s motion to reconsider an SVP’s supervised release was final and appealable:¶26 We disagree with Schulpius’s characterization of the November 2000 order. Even though the circuit court did not initially characterize it as a final order, it was clear that the November 2000 order was intended to resolve all litigation then pending between the parties, and the circuit court so indicated in a letter to the parties on December 1, 2000, stating that it would not enter any further order.
¶56 For all of these reasons, we hold that Wis. Stat. § 980.08(6m), rather than § 806.07(1)(h), governs granting relief to the State from a chapter 980 committee’s supervised release when the committee is confined in an institution awaiting placement on supervised release. Any language or inference in State v. Castillo, 205 Wis. 2d 599, 556 N.W.2d 425 (Ct. App. 1996), State v. Williams, 2001 WI App 155, 246 Wis. 2d 722, 631 N.W.2d 623, or State v. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, ¶16, 248 Wis. 2d 480, 636 N.W.2d 213, limiting the application of § 980.08(6m) to situations in which a chapter 980 committee has actually been released into the community under supervised release, is withdrawn.But see State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1 (State obtained recission of supervised release order by reconsideration motion under § 806.07 which, as Morford subsequently held, cannot support such a request. However, the court holds the challenge waived, because Schulpius sought to enforce the original order for supervised release rather than appeal the reconsideration order).
¶8 We conclude that the sole issue proposed to be addressed, that is, the appropriate mechanism for changing the supervised release status of a chapter 980 committee who has been determined to be appropriate for supervised release but who remains institutionalized and awaiting placement, satisfies several exceptions to the mootness rule.Followed, State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶¶15-16.