Ardonis Greer v. Wayne J. Wiedenhoeft
2014 WI 19
| Wis. | 2014Background
- Greer pled guilty in 2005 to two counts; the court sentenced him to prison on Count 1 and to a 3-year probation term on Count 3, to run consecutive to Count 1 (probation would end Sept. 28, 2010).
- DOC agents and records erroneously treated Greer as discharged effective Sept. 28, 2007; DOC issued an absolute discharge certificate dated Oct. 3, 2007.
- In 2009–2010 Greer committed new criminal conduct (intimidating a witness); DOC discovered the record error during a presentence investigation and placed a DOC hold.
- DOC initiated revocation proceedings in Sept. 2010; an ALJ revoked Greer’s probation based on the new offense and related violations; the Division of Hearings and Appeals affirmed.
- Greer sought certiorari review; the circuit court reversed on equitable-estoppel grounds (holding DOC’s discharge certificate estopped revocation); the court of appeals reversed the circuit court.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the court of appeals: DOC retained jurisdiction, due process was not violated, and equitable estoppel is not available in certiorari review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greer) | Defendant's Argument (State/DOC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to revoke after DOC-issued discharge certificate | The erroneous discharge certificate was a "significant legal moment" that ended DOC jurisdiction | DOC retained jurisdiction because valid court order imposed a consecutive probation term; a clerical error cannot override sentence | DOC retained jurisdiction; discharge certificate issued before term expiration did not divest jurisdiction |
| Procedural due process (notice of supervision/revocation) | DOC’s record errors and inconsistent case-numbering deprived Greer of adequate notice he was still on probation | Greer was present at sentencing and had notice of the consecutive probation term; revocation paperwork identified same underlying case | No procedural due process violation; notice was adequate |
| Substantive due process (record-keeping failure) | DOC’s failure to maintain accurate records and issuance of discharge certificate violated substantive due process | DOC’s failures were clerical/negligent, not deliberate indifference; revocation was for serious new criminal conduct | No substantive due process violation; negligence insufficient to "shock the conscience" |
| Equitable estoppel as a remedy in certiorari review | Circuit court may equitably estop DOC from revocation under fairness principles | Certiorari review is limited; equitable relief is not available in that procedural posture; agency is the proper forum for equitable balancing | Equitable estoppel not available in common-law certiorari; circuit court erred to grant estoppel |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Rodriguez v. DHSS, 133 Wis. 2d 47 (Ct. App. 1986) (agency retains jurisdiction absent a discharge certificate issued at end of court-ordered term)
- State v. Stefanovic, 215 Wis. 2d 310 (Ct. App. 1997) (issuance of a valid discharge certificate at end of court-ordered term is legally significant and can end jurisdiction)
- Town of Delafield v. Winkelman, 269 Wis. 2d 109 (Wis. 2004) (certiorari courts are limited and generally may not entertain equitable defenses when reviewing agency action)
- Matamoros v. Grams, 706 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2013) (erroneous discharge due to agency negligence does not justify equitable estoppel where continued detention stems from the parolee’s own criminal conduct)