On Point: A. Right to appeal

Marinette County v. A.M.N., 2022AP1395, District III, 8/29/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

Faced with a weak record, COA holds that A.M.N. cleared imposing hurdles to relief and reverses the lower court’s medication order as there was no proof he received a reasonable explanation of the proposed medication. However, despite a hearing rife with inadmissible hearsay, COA upholds the underlying commitment order under a harmless error analysis. 

Winnebago County v. J.L.C., 2023AP200, District II, 8/23/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

Although most litigators believed that arguments about mootness in 51 appeals were now settled, COA resurrects the mootness doctrine to deny relief in this appeal of an expired order.

Waukesha County DHHS v. M.A.S., 2022AP877, District 2, 3/22/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.B. (Rose), a daughter of M.A.S. (Mary), filed an appeal of an order granting the County’s petition for a protective placement of Mary. The court of appeals holds Rose doesn’t have standing to appeal the order.

State v. Kevin Richard Raddemann, 2022AP668-CR, 12/21/22, District II (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

In this misdemeanor OWI case, Raddemann moved to suppress evidence obtained following a stop of his vehicle. After the suppression hearing, he moved for reconsideration, arguing that a City of Hartford cemetery ordinance, which was the basis for the stop, was unconstitutionally vague. The circuit court denied Raddemann’s motion to reconsider because it was untimely. ¶5.

Rock County v. P.P., 2021AP678, District 4, 12/16/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

P.P. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence elicited in support of the involuntary medication order issued in April 2020, along with the original commitment order. Both orders were set to expire in October 2020, so in September 2020 the County petitioned to extend them for 12 months. P.P. stipulated to the extension. (¶¶2-4). Because of the September 2020 extension of the medication order, P.P.’s appeal of the original order is moot.

Jefferson County v. S.M.S., 2020AP814, 3/11/21, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

It is blackletter law that the probable cause hearing for a Chapter 51 commitment must be held within a statutorily-prescribed time from the subject individual’s detention or the circuit court must dismiss the proceeding for lack of competency to adjudicate it. See §51.20(7)(a) and Dodge Cnty. v. Ryan E.M., 2002 WI App 71, ¶5, 252 Wis. 2d 490, 642 N.W.2d 592. In this case, the court of appeals held that the Ryan E.M. rule did not apply because the individual’s conduct (he was pro se) made it necessary for the circuit court to adjourn the probable cause hearing beyond the 72-hour period expired.

State v. James Lee Ballentine, 2019AP1597, 1/20/21, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Ballentine stood trial for three counts of delivering drugs. The charges arose from controlled buys; James was the informant and buyer. Ballentine’s defense was that James–seeking mitigation in his own drug charges–had framed Ballentine. Ballentine’s theory was that James had come into the alleged sales with the drugs already on him, and that he had concealed this fact by hiding them in such a way that the supervising police officers’ pat-downs would not find them. As part of this defense, Ballentine wished to adduce testimony that James had successfully concealed drugs from a police pat-down before, during an arrest; the drugs were eventually recovered after James ditched them in the police station.

Sauk County v. S.A.M., 2019AP1033, 9/3/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), reversed, 2022 WI 46; case activity

Wisconsin involuntarily commits mentally ill people  at a higher rate than any other state in the United States–close to 5 times the national average. Click here. Wisconsin is also in the minority of states that will dismiss an appeal from an expired commitment order as moot. Unless we’re  prepared to accept that, compared to the rest of the country, Wisconsin has a much larger percentage of residents who are both mentally ill and dangerous, this is troubling. It suggests that Wisconsin may be unlawfully committing and medicating people and then denying them their right to appeal. SCOW is poised to decide whether commitment appeals are ever moot. So the court of appeals could have stayed this appeal until SCOW resolved the point. Instead, it walked out on a limb to dismiss the appeal as moot.

Rock County v. R.J., 2020AP93, 8/13/20, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Thank heavens this opinion is not published. R.J’s initial commitment expired before he filed his notice of appeal. According to the court of appeals, R.J. should have sua sponte addressed mootness in his initial brief–before the County ever argued the point. Because R.J. waited to see whether the County would even raise mootness and then addressed the matter in his reply, the court of appeals dismissed his appeal. The court of appeals also made an error of law regarding the “contemporaneous objection” requirement.  Hopefully, R.J. will move for reconsideration or petition for review.

Portage County v. E.R.R., 2019AP2033, 5/21/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

E.R.R.’s original commitment term expired during the pendency of his appeal, but the commitment was extended. He concedes this makes the appeal moot but argues the court should nevertheless decide his issues because they are of great public importance and likely to arise again. We’ll never know if he had a point, because the briefs are confidential and the court’s rejection of his arguments consists of a single paragraph: