State v. Williams-Holmes

404 Wis.2d 88

978 N.W.2d 523

2022 WI App 38

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Junior L. WILLIAMS-HOLMES, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 2021AP809-CR

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs: March 16, 2022

Opinion Filed: June 15, 2022

On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Dustin C. Haskell, assistant state public defender of Milwaukee.

On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of John W. Kellis, assistant attorney general, and Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general.

Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Grogan, JJ.

GUNDRUM, P.J.

¶1 Junior L. Williams-Holmes appeals from a judgment and order of the circuit court. He contends the court erred in denying his postconviction motion challenging conditions of his probation and extended supervision (hereinafter collectively referred to as "supervision") that he "not ... reside with any member of the opposite sex without the permission of the Court , nor reside with any child who is not related to [him] by blood without the permission of the Court. " (Emphasis added.) Specifically, Williams-Holmes contends these conditions (improperly) grant to the court the role of "administering" his supervision with regard to these conditions while the statutes specifically grant that role to the Department of Corrections (the department). He insists we must "amend" the conditions so that they read that he may not reside with any woman or with a child not related to him by blood without the permission of the department.

¶2 Because Williams-Holmes’ request would be in conflict with the circuit court's "probationary program" and because the court's supervision conditions as written can be read and implemented in a manner consistent with the law, we uphold them, but we do so with the clarification contained herein. We affirm.

Background

¶3 Williams-Holmes pled guilty to two counts of battery, one count of false imprisonment, and one count of bail jumping, all as a repeater, in connection with domestic abuse he committed against his girlfriend. His sentence included confinement in prison followed by a period of extended supervision, and he was also ordered to serve several years of consecutive probation. The circuit court stated that in light of Williams-Holmes’ history of domestic violence, it was ordering as conditions of supervision that he "not ... reside with any member of the opposite sex without the permission of the Court , nor reside with any child who is not related to [him] by blood without the permission of the Court ." (Emphasis added.)

¶4 In considering whether to separately order that Williams-Holmes have no contact with the victim, the court stated: "I've already put in, in effect, a no contact. He'll have to come in and get approval ." (Emphasis added.) The court also explained to Williams-Holmes that "even though I've restricted your living with children, you can come back to court and get permission if you show that you're going to be a responsible individual." (Emphasis added.)

¶5 Postconviction, Williams-Holmes moved to amend the judgment of conviction "to require permission from [the department], not the court, before Mr. Williams-Holmes may live with women or children not related to him by blood." In denying Williams-Holmes’ motion, the circuit court articulated in a written memorandum that Williams-Holmes "has moved ... to transfer from the court to [the department] the authority to regulate his residence with women and children unrelated by blood." (Emphasis added.) The court expressed its belief that it had the constitutional authority "to impose conditions and regulate the behavior of a probationer." (Emphasis added.) The court also explained that "[i]t was the practices of [the department] which led me initially to impose the requirement for my approval of the department's practice of residential placements of offenders with unrelated children." (Emphasis added.) The court provided a specific "example of how the department even now approaches this issue."

¶6 The example is a 2019 e-mail request from a department probation and parole agent seeking the permission of the circuit court for an offender, who presumably had been recently sentenced by this particular judge, to live at a residence "with his girlfriend of two years ... and her 8-year-old son along with [the girlfriend's] adult sister and 20-year-old niece." In its e-mail response denying the agent's request, the court stated in part, "I definitely would not approve the placement which [the department] is proposing without more information," noting that, in a case out of Milwaukee, the offender was sentenced somewhat recently without a presentence report "so there is a substantial information gap about him." The court added, "I must admit I am concerned that [the department] would suggest this ‘solution’ " and "I have felt for many years that [the department] gives too little attention to the vulnerability of children who are involved in these placements, and does not seem to appreciate the enhanced risk these children are exposed to when placements like this are allowed."¹ Following this example, the court referred to its belief that "supervision" of its "program of probation" is the role of the court.

¶7 On appeal, Williams-Holmes challenges the conditions of supervision the court ordered in this case and the denial of his postconviction motion related to the same.

Relevant Statutes

¶8 WISCONSIN STAT . § 301.03 (2019-20),² General corrections authority , provides that the department shall:

(3) Administer parole, extended supervision , and probation matters , except that the decision to grant or deny parole to inmates shall be made by the parole commission and the decision to revoke probation, extended supervision, or parole, ... shall be made by the division of hearings and appeals in the department of administration.

(Emphasis added.)

¶9 WISCONSIN STAT . § 973.10, Control and supervision of probationers , provides:

(1) Imposition of probation shall have the effect of placing the defendant in the custody of the department and shall subject the defendant to the control of the department under conditions set by the court and rules and regulations established by the department for the supervision of probationers, parolees and persons on extended supervision.

(Emphasis added.) And WIS. STAT. §§ 973.01(5), EXTENDED SUPERVISION CONDITIONS , and 973.09(1), Probation , respectively provide that when a court imposes a bifurcated sentence, it may "impose conditions upon the term of extended supervision" and when it places a person on probation it may "impose any conditions which appear to be reasonable and appropriate."

¶10 WISCONSIN STAT . § 973.09(3)(a) provides: "Prior to the expiration of any probation period, the court, for cause and by order , may extend probation for a stated period or modify the terms and conditions thereof." (Emphasis added.) And WIS. STAT. § 302.113(7m)(a) provides: "[A] person subject to this section [i.e., the defendant] or the department may petition the sentencing court to modify any conditions of extended supervision set by the court." (Emphasis added.)

Discussion

¶11 As conditions of supervision, the circuit court ordered that Williams-Holmes "not ... reside with any member of the opposite sex without the permission of the Court, nor reside with any child who is not related to [him] by blood without the permission of the Court." As indicated, Williams-Holmes insists that these supervision conditions "must be amended to require permission from [the department], not the court." He points out that following the court's sentencing of him, he was placed into the custody and under the control of the department, per WIS. STAT. § 973.10, and asserts that without adopting his proposed "amend[ment]" to the supervision conditions, the circuit court is left in the position of administering probation and extended supervision matters, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 301.03(3).³ The State counters that the challenged supervision conditions are authorized by WIS. STAT. §§ 973.09(3)(a) and 302.113(7m)(a) because they amount to little more than the court expressing that in the future the court may be willing to modify the prohibition against Williams-Holmes residing with women and/or with children unrelated by blood if the situation warrants.

¶12 This appeal calls upon us to interpret and apply various statutes. Statutory interpretation and application are matters of law we review de novo. See Century Fence Co. v. American Sewer Servs. , 2021 WI App 75, ¶8, 399 Wis. 2d 742, 967 N.W.2d 32. Furthermore, in interpreting statutes that are alleged to be in conflict, we must "seek[ ] to harmonize them through a reasonable construction that gives effect to all provisions."

State v. Reyes Fuerte , 2017 WI 104, ¶29, 378 Wis. 2d 504, 904 N.W.2d 773. Thus, we will do so.

¶13 In its sentencing comments expounding on the challenged supervision conditions, the circuit court appeared to indicate that its conditions that Williams-Holmes not reside with any woman and/or with any child not related to him by blood "without the permission of the Court" meant that William-Holmes could not reside with any woman and/or such child unless the court modified the conditions, thereby giving its "permission." Related to this understanding of the supervision conditions, the court stated: "I've already put in, in effect, a no contact. He'll have to come in and get approval. " (Emphasis added.) The court further explained to William-Holmes that "even though I've restricted your living with children, you can come back to court and get permission if you show that you're going to be a responsible individual." (Emphasis added.)

¶14 In its postconviction memorandum, however, the circuit court seemed to indicate that its "without the permission of the court" language was referring to a more informal process of approval and oversight of department decisions related to...