On Point blog, page 1 of 2
COA holds that protective placement may be continued based on evidence from previous hearings provided the evidence was “adjudicated.”
Pierce County v. P.C.A., 2024AP1367, 7/1/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
While affirming the circuit court continuing a protective placement order under Chapter 55 after a due process hearing (known as a Watts hearing), the COA clarified that, following previous due process hearings, documentary evidence that was admitted, and testimony that was accepted by the circuit court and incorporated into its findings, may be considered at subsequent due process hearings.
COA holds that trial court did not err in finding that defendant could be restored to competency
State v. T.R.T., 2025AP387-CR, 6/19/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although it acknowledges uncertainty as to the appropriate standard of review, COA ultimately affirms the circuit court’s order under a clearly erroneous standard.
COA rejects sufficiency challenges in 51 appeal and affirms
Waukesha County v. J.A.K., 2024AP2535, 6/25/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another Chapter 51 appeal, COA rejects the usual arguments and affirms.
Defense Win! COA agrees that failure to timely provide examiner reports prior to initial commitment hearing deprives court of competency
Outagamie County v. M.J.B., 2024AP250, 5/20/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case clarifying a legal question that has persisted for years in 51 litigation, COA holds that when the examiners do not satisfy the statutorily-imposed deadline for filing their reports in connection with a final hearing in an original commitment proceeding, the circuit court can lose competency.
COA affirms recommitment and involuntary medication orders over sufficiency and hearsay challenges in detailed discussion
Fond du Lac County v. D.P.E., 2025AP66-FT, 4/30/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting D.P.E. (referred to as “Donald”) and authorizing the involuntarily administration of medication. Donald argued on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence to establish dangerousness and failed to meet its burden to prove he was not competent to refuse medication.
COA affirms third standard (2.c.) ch. 51 appeal due to abnormal neck movements and previous food restriction
Winnebago County v. J.D.M., 2024AP1601, 4/16/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting J.D.M. (referred to as “Josh”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication. A jury found Josh mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous to himself or others. Josh argues on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence at trial to prove that he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., d., or e, and the court made insufficient findings to enter the involuntary medication order.
Excessive water intake sufficient to find person “dangerous” under Chapter 51.
Winnebago County v. J.M., 2024AP1554, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirmed the circuit court’s order recommitting J.M. (referred to as “James Moore”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication. The Court found that Moore suffers from schizoaffective disorder, which caused him to drink an excessive amount of water to the point that he needed to be transported to the emergency room for low sodium levels in his body. The Court therefore found that Moore is a danger to himself, and that he is a proper subject for treatment because his condition is treatable with medication.
Seventh Circuit retrospectively evaluates habeas petitioner’s competence at his 2006 trial; despite low IQ and mental illness, court denies due process and IAC claims.
Jacob Alan Powers v. Jon Noble, No. 24-2134, 3/25/25
The Seventh Circuit found that Jacob Powers was competent to stand trial in a Wisconsin court in 2006 for sexual assault of a child and child enticement. Although Powers’ IQ was in the borderline/mild mental retardation range; his trial testimony, trial counsel’s decision not to challenge his competency, and two experts’ findings that he was competent convinced the Court that he reasonably understood the charges against him, trial procedures, and could assist his lawyer in his defense. The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s order denying Powers’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Although County concedes findings could have been more thorough, COA discerns no DJW violation and affirms
Winnebago County v. J.S., 2024AP1333, 3/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another case testing the applicability of SCOW’s D.J.W. mandate, COA finds that the circuit court “barely” satisfied those requirements and affirms.
Defense Wins: COA reverses Chapter 51 commitment for insufficient evidence of dangerousness.
Monroe County v. M.C., 2024AP924, 12/12/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s commitment order under Chapter 51 where the court did not make sufficient factual findings to support its conclusion that M.C. was dangerous, as required by D.J.W.