Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
NOTICE
DECISION
DATED AND FILED                                                                            This opinion is subject to further editing.   If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
April 23, 2013
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Diane M. Fremgen                                                                                                                                               petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals                                                                                                                                      Court of Appeals.   See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
                                                                                                                                                               and RULE 809.62.
                                                                                                                                                               Cir. Ct. No.   2012CV355
Appeal No.                                                                                 2012AP390
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                                                                             IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I
STATE OF WISCONSIN EX REL. LARRY D. CONLEY,
PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
V.
SHERIFF DAVID CLARKE,
RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
MICHAEL J. DWYER, Judge.   Affirmed.
Before Fine, Kessler and Brennan, JJ.
¶1                                                                                         PER  CURIAM.    Larry  D.  Conley,  pro  se,  appeals  the  order
dismissing  his  petition  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.    Conley argues  that  his
placement in custody was unlawful because he was not provided with adequate




No.   2012AP390
notice or a hearing regarding the alleged violations of the terms of his extended
supervision.   We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2                                                                                        In                                                                                                                                               2010,  Conley  was  convicted  of  two  felonies  for  fleeing  and
                                                                                          eluding   an   officer   in   Milwaukee   County  Case   Nos.                                                                                                                                                          2008CF1568   and
                                                                                                                                                               2008CF1895.1   He was released on extended supervision in August of 2011.
¶3                                                                                        Approximately five months after his release, a statement was taken
from Conley regarding his activities in recent months.   In the statement, Conley
denied  using  cocaine  or  drinking  alcohol.    Conley further  stated  that  he  had
purchased  a  car  after  receiving  permission  from  his  agent  to  do  so.     He
acknowledged driving the car at 3:00 a.m., but denied knowing he had a curfew.
Conley advised that he had contact with police, which he did not report within
seventy-two hours because “my agent put my visit off.”
¶4                                                                                        Following Conley’s statement, a Violation Investigation Report was
prepared  documenting  a  number  of  violations  of  the  terms  of  his  extended
supervision.   Namely, Conley’s urine tested positive for cocaine; he purchased a
vehicle and registered it in his own name without permission from his agent; he
operated a vehicle without a valid driver’s license or valid proof of insurance; he
violated his curfew; and he had police contact, which he failed to report to his
agent within seventy-two hours.    The Report recommended that Conley serve
1  We take judicial notice of Consolidated Court Automation Program (CCAP) records
related to Conley’s underlying criminal convictions.
2




No.   2012AP390
ninety days as a sanction.   The Department of Corrections subsequently issued an
order to this effect.
¶5                                                                                        After being placed in custody, Conley filed the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus at issue.   The State, by the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s
Office,  moved  to  dismiss  and  submitted  CCAP  records  related  to  Conley’s
underlying convictions, Conley’s statement, the Violation Investigation Report,
and the Order for Sanctions.  The circuit court granted the motion.
DISCUSSION
¶6                                                                                        “Habeas corpus is a civil proceeding which  ‘test[s] the right of a
person to his personal liberty.’   The purpose of the writ is to protect and vindicate
the petitioner’s right to be free from illegal restraint.”   State ex rel. Marberry v.
Macht, 2003 WI 79, ¶22, 262 Wis. 2d 720, 732, 665 N.W.2d 155, 162 (italics
added; citations omitted; brackets in Marberry).
The  extraordinary  relief  provided  by  the  writ  of
habeas corpus is available only in limited circumstances
and is subject to three prerequisites.   First, the petitioner
must be restrained of his liberty.   Second, the restraint must
have  been  imposed  without  jurisdiction  or  contrary  to
constitutional  protections.                                                              Third,  the  petitioner  must
demonstrate  that  there  are  no  other  adequate  remedies
available  in  the  law.    Absent  a  showing  that  all  three
criteria are met, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue.
Id., 2003 WI 79, ¶23, 262 Wis. 2d at 732-33, 665 N.W.2d at 162 (italics added;
citations omitted).
¶7                                                                                        Conley has not made the requisite showing.    He relies solely on
assertions—made  without  factual  support—that  the  proceedings  against  him
should  be  invalidated  because  he  received  inadequate  notice.    This  appeal  is
undeveloped and conclusory; as such, we will not consider it further.   See State v.
3




No.   2012AP390
Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646, 492 N.W.2d 633, 642 (Ct. App. 1992); see also State
v. Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d 328, 337, 600 N.W.2d 39, 43 (Ct. App. 1999) (“A party
must do more than simply toss a bunch of concepts into the air with the hope that
either the [circuit] court or the opposing party will arrange them into viable and
fact-supported legal theories.”).2
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This   opinion   will   not   be   published.                                                      See   WIS.   STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.
2  We note that the Department of Corrections’ order specified that Conley’s ninety days
in custody would expire on March 22, 2012.   The State does not discuss whether the issue before
is moot; as such, we will save that matter for another day.
4

Download 2012ap000390.pdf

Wisconsin Law