On Point blog, page 3 of 60

COA finds evidence sufficient for medication order in Ch. 51; once again highlights inconsistent case law

Winnebago County v. D.P., 2024AP2391-FT, 3/19/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In appeal eerily similar to a SCOW case that was dismissed as improvidently granted, COA affirms and holds that the conclusory testimony supporting involuntary medication and recommitment was legally sufficient.

Read full article >

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.

Read full article >

State concedes right to appear in-person was violated, COA finds error harmless

State v. A.M.N., 2024AP440-CR, 3/4/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

While the State concedes that A.M.N.’s statutory right to appear in person for a competency hearing was violated, COA finds the error harmless and affirms.

Read full article >

COA rejects challenges to extension order; holds that stipulation to original commitment dooms sufficiency challenge

Sheboygan County v. L.L., 2024AP1443, 2/26/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA confronts the usual challenges to a recommitment order and affirms based on a somewhat novel legal theory–that L.L.’s earlier stipulation to a commitment order undermines her sufficiency challenge to the recommitment.

Read full article >

COA dismisses another ch. 51 recommitment appeal as moot

Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2024AP1390, 2/12/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA dismisses “Rex’s” D.J.W. and sufficiency challenges to his 2023 recommitment and involuntary medication orders as moot.

Read full article >

COA affirms ch. 51 medication order in “close case”

Dane County v. A.M.M., 2024AP1670, 2/13/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Amanda” challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to her medication order. The COA calls this a “close case,” but affirms.

Read full article >

COA rejects challenges to extension and medication orders and affirms another Chapter 51

Racine County v. C.D.B., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In “Banks’s” most recent appeal, he once again challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to his extension and medication orders. Like his last appeal, however, those arguments go nowhere.

Read full article >

COA once again holds that a colloquy is not required before a person stipulates to a mental commitment order

Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 5/21/25 case activity

In yet another appeal asking COA to clarify the procedure for accepting a stipulation to a mental commitment, COA refuses N.A.L.’s invitation to issue a precedential opinion and affirms based largely on a prior unpublished decision.

Read full article >

COA holds that County sufficiently proved dangerousness under second standard

Trempealeau County v. C.B.O., 2024AP1520-FT, 2/4/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms, holding that the evidence of a verbal threat to kill someone, and “Carl’s” actions during a subsequent police chase, were both sufficient to establish dangerousness under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.b.

Read full article >

In potentially consequential 51 appeal, COA suggests DJW errors can be cured during postconviction proceedings

Waupaca County v. A.L.H., 2024AP1526, 1/30/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

While many litigators may have believed the issue of a remedy for a D.J.W. violation had been clarified by SCOW, COA holds that recent precedent does not preclude a circuit court from making the required findings during postconviction proceedings.

Read full article >