GREEN BAY, WI (WTAQ-WLUK) — Prosecutors properly revoked a deferred judgement agreement in a drug case, an appeals court ruled Tuesday, because even though the paperwork was filed after the two-year window, it happened before a resolution hearing in the case.
Derrick Grignon entered into a deferred judgement agreement with prosecutors on counts of methamphetamine possession and obstruction. Under the terms of the deal, if Grignon didn’t commit any additional violations, the case would be dismissed.
A review hearing was set for May 7, 2024, two years and a day after the deal was approved. However, the court rescheduled the hearing to May 14. But on May 13, prosecutors moved to revoke the DJA, alleging he violated its terms when he was charged with felony cases in 2013.
On appeal, Grignon argues that because the state didn’t file the revocation motion within the proscribed two years, it couldn’t so do.
However, in an 11-page ruling issued Tuesday, the appeals court rejected his motion.
“The agreement therefore provided that Grignon could not fully comply with the conditions of the DJA until he filed his proof of compliance at the end of the deferral period. Therefore, as the State argues, the State could not move the circuit court to revoke the DJA for Grignon’s failure to comply with the agreement’s conditions until after the deferral period had concluded. Here, the case was still ongoing on May 13, 2024, despite the deferral period having ended, because Grignon had not complied with the proof of completion provision and the court had yet to adjudicate Grignon’s compliance with the DJA,” the decision states.
“In summary, under these circumstances, the State could, prior to or at the rescheduled hearing, revoke the DJA for Grignon’s violation of the condition that he not commit any further acts rising to the level of probable cause of a violation of a criminal law and/or his violation of the proof of completion provision. The circuit court did not extend the deferral period because that period ended on May 6, 2024. The rescheduled hearing merely addressed Grignon’s compliance with the DJA “during the deferral period” and “[a]t the end of the deferral period.” Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order granting the State’s motion to revoke the DJA, albeit on different grounds,” the decision states.
