2000 WI 44

 

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

 

 

Case No.:           98-0394

 

 

Complete Title

Of Case:          


In re the Commitment of Derek Miller:

 

State of Wisconsin,

     Petitioner-Respondent,

     v.

Derek Miller,

     Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner.

 

 

REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Reported at:  229 Wis. 2d 567, 600 N.W.2d 224

          (Ct. App. 1999-Published)

 


 

Opinion Filed:        May 26, 2000

Submitted on Briefs:          

Oral Argument:       April 6, 2000

 

 

Source of APPEAL

                COURT:      Circuit

                COUNTY:     Milwaukee

                JUDGE:       Jeffrey A. Kremers

 

 

JUSTICES:

                Concurred:          

                Dissented:          

                Not Participating:       

 

 

ATTORNEYS:        For the respondent-appellant-petitioner there were briefs and oral argument by Ellen Henak, assistant state public defender.

 

                For the petitioner-respondent the cause was argued by Warren D. Weinstein, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general.

 


2000 WI 44

 

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing and modification.  The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.

 

 

No.  98-0394

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN                    :      IN SUPREME COURT

 

FILED

 

MAY 26, 2000

 

Cornelia G. Clark

Clerk of Supreme Court

Madison, WI

 

 

 

 

 

 
 


In re the Commitment of Derek Miller:

 

State of Wisconsin,

 

          Petitioner-Respondent,

 

     v.

 

Derek Miller,

 

          Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner.

 

 


REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed as improvidently granted.

1   PER CURIAM.   After examination of the record and the briefs of the parties, and after hearing oral argument, we conclude that the petition for review was improvidently granted.[1]  Derek Miller, the petitioner, stipulated that he was a sexually violent person and raised issues about his placement.  Because the statutes at issue have changed since the petitioner's case arose and the court of appeals has adequately addressed the issues raised by the parties, we conclude that this case does not meet our standards for review.

By the Court.—The review of the decision of the court of appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted.

2   DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate.

 

 

 


 

 



[1] State v. Miller, 229 Wis. 2d 567, 600 N.W.2d 224 (Ct. App. 1999).