On Point blog, page 1 of 64
COA holds that Ch. 51 respondent forfeited his right to counsel by successfully requesting change of appointed counsel
Winnebago County v. C.B., 2026AP1754-FT, 11/4/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case that signals an alarming watering down of the forfeiture standard, COA finds nothing improper about forcing a mentally ill Chapter 51 respondent to represent themselves at a final hearing simply because they requested a single change in counsel.
COA concludes that circuit court properly exercised discretion in imposing maximum term of NGI commitment and declines to impose additional requirements
State v. Gavin J. Balke, 2024AP579-CR, 10/13/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
COA rejects Balke’s challenge to the length of his not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (“NGI”) commitment, concluding that the record “amply supports the circuit court’s discretionary decision” to order the maximum commitment period possible and declines to apply sentencing law in the context of an NGI commitment.
COA reverses protective placement for insufficient evidence.
Chippewa County v. N.M.E., 2026AP545, 10/13/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the circuit court’s order granting Chippewa County’s petition for protective placement because the evidence was insufficient to show that “Nora’s” cognitive decline presented a substantial risk of serious and foreseeable harm to her and because protective placement was not the least restrictive environment consistent with her needs.
SCOW to decide whether circuit court loses competency to continue protective placement when the County does not comply with statutory deadline to file petition and report for annual review.
Milwaukee County Department on Aging v. J.J., 2024AP1850, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision, granted 10/14/26; case activity
SCOW will decide whether the circuit court loses competency to continue protective placement when the County does not comply with the deadline to file a petition and report for annual review.
COA rejects medley of challenges to Chapter 51 and affirms
Kenosha County v. R.M.P., 2026AP336, 10/7/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects “Ronald’s” attempts to overturn his commitment order based on his claims that the court denied his right to self-representation, held the hearing outside of the statutory timeframe, and that the evidence was insufficient.
Defense win: COA reverses protective placement due to insufficient evidence of condition causing incapacity
Calumet County v. S.A., 2026AP1076, 10/7/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reverses S.A.’s protective placement, concluding that the county failed to present sufficient evidence that her incapacity is a result of developmental disability, degenerative brain disorder,
serious and persistent mental illness, or other like incapacities.
COA rejects attempt to distinguish SCOW precedent and finds dangerousness in Ch. 51
Washington County v. P.B.T., 2026AP1230, 9/23/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although P.B.T. tries to argue that the plain text of the statute precluded a finding of dangerousness, COA finds his argument foreclosed by existing precedent interpreting that statute and affirms.
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.
COA relies on evidence from initial protective placement hearing to conclude current placement least restrictive where there is no evidence condition had changed and some evidence condition had deteriorated.
Door County v. R.A.W., 2026AP83, 8/18/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the appellant’s protective placement in a 24-hour community based residential facility because evidence from the initial hearing and hearing to continue protective placement was sufficient to show that the current placement was the least restrictive in light of the appellant’s need for medication management and 24-hour supervision.
SCOW grants review to address constitutionality of § 971.17(3)(e) and/or forfeiture arguments
State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 8/18/26; case activity
SCOW grants the state’s petition in this defense win (see our post on the COA decision here), which held that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits a circuit court to revoke an NGI acquittee’s conditional release and to commit the acquittee to institutional care based solely on the violation of a court-ordered condition or department rule without proof of current dangerousness.