|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED November
30, 1995 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an
adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See § 808.10 and Rule
809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound
volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 94-3181
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE
OF WISCONSIN EX REL.
WILLIAM
J. EVERS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
MOLLY
SULLIVAN-OLSON,
DAN
BENZER and TINA FUCHS,
Respondents-Respondents.
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for Dane County: MICHAEL N. NOWAKOWSKI, Judge.
Affirmed.
Before
Gartzke, P.J., Dykman and Vergeront, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. William Evers, an inmate at
Racine Correctional Institution (RCI), appeals from an order dismissing his
petition for a writ of certiorari.
Evers alleged that the respondents, all department of corrections'
employees, violated his statutory and due process rights when they denied his
application to the intensive sanctions program. We conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the petition,
and therefore affirm.
In
1988, Evers began serving a twenty-year prison term. In 1992, he submitted a proposed plan for release to the division
of intensive sanctions (DIS). DIS
issued a report written by Dan Benzer[1]
indicating that DIS placement would not occur due to Evers' long criminal
record and his community's strong reaction against a DIS release.
In
April 1993, Evers was denied parole. In
May, he resubmitted his DIS plan. There
is no record of any response to his submission. In October 1993, the program review committee (PRC) at RCI denied
Evers' request for transfer to a minimum security institution.
Evers'
petition for review only concerns Benzer's report of December 1992, declaring
that a DIS release would not occur. He
asserts that Benzer prepared the report based on an erroneous view of the facts
and without proper investigation, and that it was a reviewable decision
foreclosing the parole commission and PRC from even considering him for
intensive sanctions release. He
expressly states in his brief that his petition did not seek review of those
subsequent decisions by the parole commission and PRC. Molly Sullivan-Olson and Tina Fuchs are
identified as respondents because of their alleged involvement with, or
acceptance of, Benzer's report.
The
only decisions reviewable on certiorari are the ones made by the PRC and the
parole commission which Evers chose not to challenge. A person is eligible for DIS release only if sentenced to the
program, directed into the program by DOC, placed in it by the parole
commission, or assigned to it by agreement as an alternative to parole or probation
revocation. Section 301.048(2), Stats.
DOC will not direct a prisoner into the program unless that prisoner is
deemed eligible by the PRC of the place of confinement. Wisconsin
Administrative Code §§ DOC 333.04(1)(d) and 302.20. Here, Evers was not paroled and was not
deemed eligible by the PRC because it did not even deem him eligible for a
minimum security institution, let alone release from prison under DIS
supervision. At best, Benzer's report
was a recommendation, not a reviewable decision of the department on DIS
eligibility. Because Evers choose not
to seek review of the relevant decisions, the trial court properly dismissed
the petition.
By
the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.