State v. Schwarz
825 N.W.2d 497
Wis. Ct. App.2012Background
- Greer was convicted of two felonies in Racine County case 2004CF1184, with Count 1 (possession with intent to deliver THC) and Count 3 (possession of a firearm by a felon); Count 3 was sentenced to three years of probation consecutive to the Count 1 sentence, but the DOC failed to input the Count 3 term into its system.
- The court sentenced Greer to three years in prison for Count 1 and ordered a three-year consecutive probation for Count 3; the DOC discharge certificate later stated he was discharged in 2007 before the Count 3 probation term expired.
- Greer received a discharge certificate in 2007 indicating absolute discharge; a 2009–2010 incident led to a new felony (intimidation of a witness/threat of force) in 2010 and revocation proceedings.
- In 2010 the ALJ revoked Greer’s probation; the Racine County Circuit Court reversed, holding the DOC was equitably estopped by the discharge certificate from revoking; the Division appealed.
- The issue before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is whether the DOC retained jurisdiction to revoke Greer’s probation despite the discharge certificate, whether equitable estoppel can bar revocation in certiorari review, whether due process was violated, and whether the Division acted within its discretion and the evidence supports revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the DOC retain jurisdiction to revoke Greer despite the discharge certificate? | Greer | Schwarz/Division | Yes; discharge did not extinguish the court-ordered probation term. |
| Is equitable estoppel available in certiorari review to bar revocation? | Greer | Division | No; equitable relief not available in certiorari review. |
| Were Greer's due process rights violated by the discharge certificate or revocation? | Greer | Division | No; Greer knew or should have known he was on probation and could not violate the law. |
| Was the Division's revocation decision supported by law and substantial evidence? | Greer | Division | Yes; proper exercise of discretion with substantial evidence. |
| Was notice and procedural due process adequately addressed? | Greer | Division | Adequate notice; procedural protections satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz, 211 Wis. 2d 710 (Ct. App. 1997) (scope of certiorari review; division weighs evidence)
- Town of Delafield v. Winkelman, 269 Wis. 2d 109 (2004 WI 17) (certiorari review limits; equitable arguments not allowed)
- Winkelman v. Town of Delafield, 239 Wis.2d 542 (2000 WI App 254) (scope of certiorari; estoppel considerations)
- State ex rel. Rodriguez v. DHSS, 133 Wis. 2d 47 (Ct. App. 1986) (discharge discussions; jurisdiction retained after erroneous statements)
- State v. Stefanovic, 215 Wis.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1997) (discharge certificate's legitimacy depends on consistency with court order)
- G.G.D. v. State, 97 Wis.2d 1 (1980) (imputing knowledge of probation status; due process)