Appeals court affirms circuit court decision in jail transfer dispute

The Third District Court of Appeals in Wausau has disposed of an appeal filed by a Michigan man who alleged that Oneida County circuit judge Mike Bloom erred when he declined to order sheriff Grady Hartman to allow the man to serve his four-month jail sentence on a child enticement charge in another county.

Because Jeremy Alquist completed his jail sentence before the first appeal brief was even filed, the issue is moot, the appeals court ruled Wednesday.

“Here, a decision on whether a writ of mandamus should compel Hartman to (allow Alquist to) serve his conditional jail time in Florence County would have no practical legal effect on the matter because Alquist has already served the jail time,” the court wrote. “Further, none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. Notably, Alquist did not file a reply brief addressing mootness, nor did he anticipatorily address mootness in his initial brief, thereby conceding that the doctrine applies. Moreover, we are not persuaded by our review of the record that the appeal presents an issue of great public importance, nor does the issue, as presented, involve the constitutionality of a statute. If, as Alquist asserts, this appeal presents a matter of first impression, it follows that the issue does not arise often, nor is it likely to recur and evade review.”

In a 16-page brief filed in March 2022, Alquist, now 32, argued he suffered “irreversible” damage after Hartman declined to fill out the necessary paperwork to have him transferred from the Oneida County jail to Florence County, closer to his home.

Bloom handed down the four-month jail sentence, to be followed by eight years probation, on Aug. 13, 2021, after Alquist entered a guilty plea to one count of child enticement pursuant to a plea agreement. 

According to the criminal complaint, Alquist was arrested in Minocqua on June 12, 2019 after he attempted to meet a person he believed to be a 15-year-old female for sex. According to the complaint, Alquist began using the handle “Ride along” to chat with a person he believed to be a 15-year-old female. He was actually communicating with an Oneida County sheriff’s detective conducting an undercover operation.

“Ride along asked (the girl) for ‘pics,’ and Ride along immediately began using graphic phrases to suggest sexual contact he would like to engage in with (the girl),” the complaint said.

They eventually arranged to meet at a hotel in Minocqua, with (the girl) directing “don’t forget protection” and asking for “lime flavored White Claw alcoholic beverage,” the complaint states. 

Law enforcement later located Alquist at the designated meeting place sitting in a vehicle with a 12-pack of White Claw lime beverage in the backseat. When confronted by investigators, he admitted he was in the parking lot to meet a person he believed to be 15 years old and that he had rented a hotel room.

In addition to the guilty plea on the enticement charge, Alquist entered a no contest plea to one count of attempting to use a computer to facilitate a child sex crime. A deferred entry of judgment was entered on that charge.

In the appeal brief, defense attorney Matthew Eliason argued Bloom specifically stated during the sentencing hearing that he would authorize Alquist to serve his sentence in Florence or another northern county, but when it came time for the sheriff to complete the necessary paperwork to effectuate the transfer, Hartman refused.

Alquist responded to the sheriff’s decision by requesting Bloom issue a writ of mandamus (an order compelling a public officer to perform a certain duty) requiring him to complete the paperwork.

Bloom denied the request, explaining that the circuit court has lawful authority to authorize a defendant to serve a sentence to the county jail or jail time ordered as a condition of probation in a particular county jail (or jails), but does not have lawful authority to order a county sheriff to transfer an inmate from one county jail to another.

In his March 22 filing, Eliason contested that point.

“The sheriff arguably has some discretion when the prisoner is committed to the County Jail, however, when considering sentencing to a different jail, the discretion can lay nowhere else but with the sentencing judge,” Eliason wrote. 

“The County Sheriff has a specific duty to carry out the orders of the court. A sheriff cannot disregard the order of the Circuit Court Judge because the sheriff may disagree with the Judge, the Prosecutor, and the Defense. The sheriff does not have the power to be an appellate body in sentencing. Sentencing is the purview of the Judge not the sheriff.”

“In this case, the Sentencing Judge understood the importance of maintaining Jeremy’s employment and maintaining Jeremy’s strong family ties,” he added.

In a 12-page response, filed in April 2022, Oneida County Corporation Counsel Mike Fugle argued the matter was “moot” because Alquist completed his sentence on Jan. 10, 2022.

Hartman should also prevail if the court considers the merits of the case, Fugle added, arguing that Alquist had failed to identify any clear, specific legal right, “let alone a right that is free from substantial doubt.” 

He also failed to establish the alleged duty he wished the court to order the sheriff to carry out was “positive and plain,” he added.

“It is worth noting that Alquist’s entire premise that the alleged duty is ‘positive and plain,’ fails based on the text of the Judgment of Conviction alone,” Fugle wrote. “The Judgment of Conviction provides that Alquist ‘may serve in Florence/Vilas counties or any northern county.” There is no ‘plain duty’ for the Sheriff to do anything more than select from the options provided by the sentencing court. The Judgment of Conviction necessarily requires that Sheriff exercise his discretion in determining where Alquist would serve his sentence. However, the very nature of requiring a discretionary decision removes that action from the realm of a duty that is ‘positive and plain.’”

The sentencing court provided options (one of which the defendant favored) regarding where he could serve his sentence, which necessitates a discretionary act, Fugle continued, noting that sentencing court did not identify a specific county jail where Alquist was to serve his sentence. 

“Rather, the sentencing court provided a number of options two specifically and a general option of ‘any northern county,’” he wrote. “The Sheriff selected Oneida County as the appropriate County for Alquist to serve his sentence. Finally, the sentencing court did not determine that the Oneida County Jail was not suitable for the defendant. Nor did the sentencing court exclude Oneida County from the description of places where Alquist could serve his sentence.”

Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].