On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Milwaukee County v. Cheri V., 2012AP1737, District 1, 12/18/12

 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Mental health commitment, § 51.20, requires proof of mental illness and dangerousness. Cheri V. limits this challenge to the latter; the court agrees:

¶7        As seen from our recitation of the facts adduced at the trial, however, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the statutory prerequisites were met—yelling at and pointing a finger at another person,

State v. Shawn David Schulpius, 2012 WI App 134; court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); case activity

SVP Discharge Hearing – Showing Required, § 980.09(2) 

Before granting discharge hearing on a ch. 980 petition, the circuit court must satisfy itself that the petition answers two concerns: First, under § 980.09(1) “paper-review” determination, the petition alleges sufficient facts to show that the petitioner no longer satisfies commitment criteria.

Outagamie Co. Dept. of HHS v. Alicia H., 2012AP1508, District 3, 11/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Protective placement order upheld, against challenge to proof as to risk of harm (care, incompetence and permanent developmental disability being conceded). Fact-specific analysis won’t be summarized here (¶15). Proof necessary to protective placement recited (¶12), as is standard of review:

¶13      When we review a protective placement order,

on review of certification; case activity

Issue (from Certification) 

Whether our holding in Fond du Lac County v. Elizabeth M.P., 2003 WI App 232, ¶¶26, 28, 267 Wis. 2d 739, 672 N.W.2d 88, that “Wisconsin Stat. § 51.35(1)(e) mandates that a patient transferred to a more restrictive environment receive a hearing within ten days of said transfer,” is contrary to the plain language of the statute.  

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether the county adequately proved that Melanie L. is incompetent to exercise informed consent, in that: the county’s expert testified that she was incapable of applying an understanding “to her advantage” instead of “to … her mental illness … in order to make an informed choice” (§ 51.61(1)(g)4.b.); and she recognizes she is mentally ill and needs medication,

State v. Kenneth Roberts, 2012AP266, District 3, 10/11/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Discharge hearing wasn’t required on petition, where the sole expert opinion affirmed a high risk of recividism based on “dynamic” factors, notwithstanding that revised actuarial scoring methodology yielded a lower risk for “static” factors. State v. Arends, 2010 WI 46, 325 Wis. 2d 1,

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, District 1, 10/2/12; court of appeals (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13; case activity

Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence

Evidence held sufficient to uphold commitment, on issue of “dangerousness,” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, (1990), applied:

 ¶12      Here,

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issues (composed by on Point) 

1. Whether Burton is entitled to a Machner hearing on his postconviction motion asserting that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that Burton could pursue a bifurcated (NGI) plea along with his guilty plea, and have a jury determine whether he was not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

court of appeals certification, supreme court review granted 11/14/12; case activity

 § 51.35(1)(e) Patient Transfer, Time Limits

Issue certified:

Whether our holding in Fond du Lac County v. Elizabeth M.P., 2003 WI App 232, ¶¶26, 28, 267 Wis. 2d 739, 672 N.W.2d 88, that “Wisconsin Stat. § 51.35(1)(e) mandates that a patient transferred to a more restrictive environment receive a hearing within ten days of said transfer,” is contrary to the plain language of the statute.  

State v. Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr. / State v. Price T. Hunt, 2012 WI 72, affirming 2011 WI App 61; case activity (Gilbert), case activity (Hunt)

¶2   We are asked to decide whether Wisconsin Statutes chapter 980 (2005-06)[3] requires the dismissal of a pending commitment petition when the individual subject to the petition is re-incarcerated because of the revocation of parole or extended supervision.