DocketNumber: Appeal No. 2017AP994
Citation Numbers: 927 N.W.2d 150, 2019 WI App 15, 386 Wis. 2d 350
Filed Date: 2/12/2019
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/16/2022
¶1 Carlos A. Abadia appeals the circuit court's order affirming the Wisconsin Parole Commission's decision. Abadia argues: (1) the Commission's decision was arbitrary; (2) the circuit court erred because it did not retain jurisdiction when it remanded this matter to the Commission; (3) the Commission's decision after remand was arbitrary; and (4) his risk rating was improperly increased from low to moderate based on the Commission's decision. We affirm.
¶2 Abadia is serving forty years in prison for sexually assaulting three women. He became eligible for parole in 2004. Abadia's parole has been repeatedly deferred. In April 2016, the Commission deferred Abadia's parole for twelve months, even though the year before it deferred his parole for only nine months. Abadia petitioned for certiorari review of the Commission's decision. He did not challenge the denial of his parole; rather, he challenged the increase of his deferral period. The circuit court concluded that the Commission acted arbitrarily when it did not explain why the same facts that earlier justified a nine-month deferral now merited a twelve-month deferral. The circuit court remanded to the Commission for further explanation. Abadia filed a notice of appeal, seeking this court's review of the circuit court decision. While this appeal was pending, the Commission issued a decision on remand, explaining in more length why it deferred Abadia's parole for twelve months. Abadia did not seek certiorari review of the Commission's decision after remand.
¶3 We review the decision of the Commission, not the circuit court. See Richards v. Graham ,
¶4 Abadia first argues that the Commission's decision was arbitrary because it prejudged his case. This issue is moot because the Commission issued its decision after remand while this appeal was pending. " 'An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.' " McFarland State Bank v. Sherry ,
¶5 Abadia next argues that the circuit court erred because it did not retain jurisdiction when it remanded to the Commission. There is no case law or statute that requires the circuit court to retain jurisdiction in this situation. Moreover, circuit courts routinely remand to agencies without retaining jurisdiction. See , e.g. , State ex rel. Iushewitz v. Milwaukee Cty. Pers. Review Bd. ,
¶6 Abadia next argues that the Commission's decision after remand was arbitrary. Abadia did not petition the circuit court for certiorari review of the Commission's decision after remand. Abadia's petition for certiorari review of the Commission's initial decision "did not vest the circuit court with continuing jurisdiction." See State ex rel. Iushewitz ,
¶7 Finally, Abadia argues that the Program Review Committee improperly raised his risk rating from low to moderate based on the increased number of months his parole decision was deferred, causing him to lose privileges. These assertions are not properly before us. Custody classification issues may not be raised in this certiorari proceeding challenging Abadia's parole deferral. See State ex rel. Myers v. Smith ,
By the Court .-Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.