COA determines misbehavior at mental health facility sufficient to deny conditional release from NGI commitment, although defendant no longer suffers from mental illness and has no recent history of violence.
State v. Deonte D. Anderson, 2025AP1309 & 2025AP1310, 9/2/26, District II (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s petition for conditional release from a commitment entered after he was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Although the defendant no longer suffered from a mental illness and had not engaged in violence for four years, his poor behavioral record at the Mendota Mental Health Institute was sufficient evidence to deny the petition.
When he was 17, Deonte Anderson robbed a person at gunpoint and hit a correctional officer while he was incarcerated. After he was diagnosed with psychosis, mania, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, he pled not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and was committed to the Department of Health Services for 13 years. (¶ 2).
At the hearing on his petition for conditional release, the evidence showed that treatment providers at Mendota determined Anderson does not suffer from a mental illness and he was prescribed no medications. Further, he had not harmed himself or others or damaged any property for the past four years. (¶¶ 3, 5). However, a psychologist testified that Anderson continues to break the rules at Mendota, argues with staff, and interacts poorly with others. The psychologist suggested that Anderson suffers from an antisocial personality disorder and needs to better demonstrate an ability to comply with the rules at Mendota before he can be released. (¶ 3). The circuit court found that Anderson would pose a significant risk of bodily harm to himself or others or of serious property damage if he were conditionally released and denied the petition. (¶ 3). Anderson argued on appeal that the circuit court’s order was not supported by sufficient evidence.
The COA considered Anderson’s argument that he had not engaged in any violence or property damage for the past four years, but found it ignored the “necessarily predictive nature of the statutory risk assessment” contained in Wis. Stat. § 971.17(4)(d), which requires the court to consider whether the person “would” pose a significant risk of violence or property damage if released. (¶ 6). The COA found the evidence sufficient to affirm the circuit court’s order denying Anderson’s petition because the psychologist’s testimony provided a basis to conclude that his “’poor interpersonal boundaries,’ ‘provoking behaviors,’ ‘planful aggression,’ and a tendency to ‘push limits’ – may well manifest itself more grievously, and with more grievous results, outside facility walls.” (¶ 6).