State v. Yakich

400 Wis.2d 549

970 N.W.2d 12

2022 WI 8

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Christopher W. YAKICH, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.

Nos. 2019AP1832-CR & 2019AP1833-CR

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oral Argument: December 8, 2021

Opinion Filed: February 16, 2022

For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Cary Bloodworth, assistant state public defender. There was an oral argument by Cary Bloodworth.

For the defendant-appellant, there was a brief filed by Scott E. Rosenow, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Kara Lynn Janson, assistant attorney general.

ZIEGLER, C.J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in which ROGGENSACK, REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined. DALLET, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., joined.

ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.

¶1 This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, State v. Yakich, Nos. 2019AP1832-CR & 2019AP1833-CR, unpublished slip op., 2021 WL 126607 (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2021), affirming the Waupaca County circuit court's¹ orders committing Christopher W. Yakich to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services for a total period of five years.

¶2 In two separate cases, Yakich pleaded guilty to three counts of bail jumping and one count of phone harassment. In the first case, he pleaded guilty to one count of bail jumping and one count of phone harassment, and in the second case, he pleaded guilty to two counts of bail jumping. The circuit court accepted Yakich's pleas in both cases at the same hearing. After the parties agreed that Yakich was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect ("NGI")² for all four of his offenses, the court ordered a five-year NGI commitment period. In so doing, the circuit court ordered a two-year term of commitment for one of Yakich's cases and a three-year term of commitment for the second case. The commitment periods were ordered to run consecutively.

¶3 On appeal, Yakich argues that the circuit court's two commitment orders must run concurrently and cannot run consecutively. However, we hold that Wis. Stat. § 971.17 (2017-18)³ provides circuit courts with the statutory authority to impose consecutive periods of NGI commitment. Because the circuit court properly exercised its authority to impose consecutive NGI commitment periods, the circuit court and the court of appeals are affirmed.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

¶4 There are two criminal cases at issue. In May 2018, Yakich called his mother to tell her that he intended to assault his brother and burn his brother's house to the ground. At the time of the phone call, Yakich was on a signature bond for unrelated criminal charges. He was subsequently charged in Waupaca County circuit court with one count of phone harassment and one count of felony bail jumping, and he was released again on signature bond.⁴ This is the first criminal case at issue.

¶5 In August 2018, while on bond, Yakich called the Waupaca County Department of Health and Human Services distressed and contemplating suicide. Police went to Yakich's apartment to conduct a welfare check. When the police arrived, they found the front door barricaded; Yakich refused to answer the door. After the police attempted to enter the apartment through use of a battering ram, Yakich exited his apartment through a back entrance. The police quickly apprehended Yakich behind his apartment, and he was handcuffed and searched. Yakich began yelling frantically, casting profanities, and accusing police of sexual assault. Once Yakich was arrested, police entered his apartment and, in plain view, officers observed drug paraphernalia and suspected illegal narcotics. After obtaining a search warrant, police seized drug paraphernalia and controlled substances in Yakich's possession; marijuana and traces of cocaine were discovered.

¶6 As a result of the events in August 2018, the State charged Yakich in Waupaca County circuit court with two counts of felony bail jumping and one count each of misdemeanor bail jumping, telephone harassment, obstructing an officer, possession of tetrahydrocannabinols ("THC"), disorderly conduct, and possession of drug paraphernalia.⁵ This is the second criminal case at issue in the instant dispute.

¶7 After Yakich was charged in both cases, he entered into a global plea agreement to resolve his outstanding charges.

He pleaded guilty to felony bail jumping and phone harassment in the first case, and he pleaded guilty to two counts of felony bail jumping in the second case. Yakich then pleaded NGI to those same counts.⁶ The State chose to not object to Yakich's NGI plea. At a hearing in December 2018, the circuit court accepted Yakich's guilty and NGI pleas for both criminal cases.

¶8 At the December 2018 hearing, the State argued that the court should impose a two-year NGI commitment period for the first case and a three-year NGI commitment period for the second case. In total, the State asked that the court order five years of NGI commitment, with the two commitment periods running consecutively. Yakich opposed the State's proposal. He argued that the circuit court could run the two NGI commitment orders only concurrently, and thus, according to Yakich, a total commitment period of three years was warranted.

¶9 The circuit court agreed with the State. It imposed a five-year commitment period, running a two-year period in the first case consecutive to a three-year period in the second case. Further, the circuit court ordered that Yakich be institutionalized in order to receive proper mental health treatment.

¶10 Yakich appealed the circuit court's orders, arguing that the circuit court lacked authority to run the two NGI commitment orders consecutively. On January 14, 2021, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court. Yakich, Nos. 2019AP1832—CR & 2019AP1833-CR. The court of appeals noted that in State v. C.A.J., 148 Wis. 2d 137, 434 N.W.2d 800 (Ct. App. 1988), it had held that NGI commitment periods under Wis. Stat. § 971.17 (1987-88) could total the maximum period of commitment that the defendant would have received had the defendant been subject to traditional criminal sentencing, "taking into account that ... sentencing court[s] ... have authority to impose consecutive prison sentences." Yakich, Nos. 2019AP1832-CR & 2019AP1833-CR, ¶¶19-23. Thus, "a commitment period encompassing multiple criminal counts" may "add[ ] together the maximum terms of imprisonment for all of those counts." Id., ¶22. Because it was concerned over whether NGI commitments could run consecutively to criminal confinement, the court of appeals stated that combined NGI commitment periods would not technically be "consecutive." Id., ¶¶9-14. Instead, the court of appeals reasoned that combined terms would be "a single commitment period" with no consecutive NGI commitment terms.⁷ Id., ¶23. Nonetheless, the court of appeals concluded that the holding of C.A.J. was still binding law, despite amendments to Wis. Stat. § 971.17 since the 1988 case was decided. Therefore, Yakich's five-year commitment period was affirmed.

¶11 Yakich petitioned this court to review the court of appeals decision. On June 16, 2021, we granted the petition.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶12 This case presents a question of statutory interpretation. "Interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo, although we benefit from the analyses of the circuit court and the court of appeals." Estate of Miller v. Storey, 2017 WI 99, ¶25, 378 Wis. 2d 358, 903 N.W.2d 759. "[S]tatutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute. If the meaning of the statute is plain, we ordinarily stop the inquiry. Statutory language is given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined words or phrases are given their technical or special definitional meaning." State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (citations and quotations omitted). In addition, "statutory language is interpreted in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results." Id., ¶46.

III. ANALYSIS

¶13 Yakich argues that courts cannot impose consecutive periods of NGI commitment, and his two commitment orders must run concurrently. He argues that a statute must provide circuit courts with the authority to impose consecutive NGI commitments, and Wis. Stat. § 971.17, the NGI commitment statute, fails to do so. In response, the State argues that the court of appeals correctly applied its binding precedent in C.A.J. According to the State, the court of appeals accurately concluded in C.A.J. that consecutive NGI commitment periods are appropriate, just as consecutive terms of confinement are appropriate in criminal sentencing. Even though § 971.17 has been amended since C.A.J., the State claims the reasoning underlying the decision remains sound.

¶14 We agree with the State and conclude that circuit courts may impose consecutive periods of NGI commitment.

A. The Authority To Impose Consecutive NGI Commitment Periods

¶15 Wisconsin Stat. § 971.17(1) establishes the commitment periods for individuals found NGI. Under the statute, commitment periods are set by reference to the category of offense and when the offense occurred:

(a) Felonies committed before July 30, 2002. Except as provided in par. (c), when a defendant is found not guilty by reason of mental disease or mental defect of a felony committed before July 30, 2002, the court shall commit the person to the department of health services for a specified period not exceeding two-thirds of the maximum term of imprisonment that could be imposed against an offender convicted of the same felony, including imprisonment authorized by

...