On Point: a. Circuit court competency

State v. Carl L. McAdory, 2025 WI 30, 7/1/25, case activity

A unanimous SCOW held that the circuit court had authority under Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(c) to reinstate Carl McAdory’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in his blood, which was dismissed when he was also convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance that arose out of the same incident or occurrence, after the OWI conviction was vacated on appeal.  The Court also rejected McAdory’s claims that the State forfeited the right to seek reinstatement by not raising the issue on his appeal from his OWI conviction, that the circuit court did not comply with the COA’s mandate, and that he was subjected to double jeopardy.

Douglas County v. M.L, 2022AP141, 12/28/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Faced with a challenge to the circuit court’s competency in this protective placement appeal, COA holds that the appellant has forfeited his challenge and therefore affirms.

Department on Aging v. R.B.L., 2022AP1431, District I, 6/27/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

In this protective placement appeal raising two interesting issues related to the circuit court’s competency, the court of appeals reverses with instructions to dismiss the underlying petition.

State v. I.B., 2022AP911 & 2022AP912, District I, 6/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

Although the State appears to have conceded it did not follow the statutory requirements for proper service of the petition(s) in this TPR, Ivy’s appeal fails because she did not object below. And, because the error could have been cured if counsel had objected, her ineffectiveness claim also fails.

State v. R.A.M., 2023AP441, 6/6/23, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 9/26/23; affirmed 6/25/24 case activity

R.A.M. was defaulted on grounds after she missed a single hearing. While the “hearing” was the fourth day of her TPR court trial, she had appeared at every prior hearing, including the first three days of trial.  As all too commonly happens, the circuit court determined that R.A.M.’s single non-appearance was “egregious and in bad faith and without justification” without ever hearing from her, and held that she had waived her right to counsel under Wis. Stat. § 48.23(2)(b)3. The court of appeals notes the paucity of grounds for this decision in a footnote, but as R.A.M. doesn’t challenge the finding of egregiousness, the opinion doesn’t otherwise address it. It does address what came next: rather than waiting the two days the same statute requires to hold a dispositional hearing after a counsel waiver, the court held the hearing on the same day and terminated R.A.M.’s rights.

Village of Trempeleau v. Mike R. Mikrut, 2004 WI 79, affirming unpublished decision

Issue/Holding: (Emphasis supplied)

¶15. Mikrut did not raise his challenge to the circuit court’s competency until long after the judgment against him had been upheld on appeal. The circuit court and the court of appeals therefore held that the argument was waived. ……

¶18. Wisconsin case law is inconsistent on the question of whether a challenge to the circuit court’s competency is subject to the common-law rule of waiver.