On Point blog, page 43 of 60
Petition for (NGI) Conditional Release, § 971.17(2) (1987-88): Dangerousness, Review
State v. Alan Adin Randall, 2011 WI App 102 (recommended for publication); for Randall: Brian Kinstler, Craig S. Powell; case activity; prior history: State v. Randall, 192 Wis. 2d 800, 532 N.W.2d 94 (1995) (“Randall I”); State v. Randall, 222 Wis. 2d 53, 586 N.W.2d 318 (Ct.
SVP – Sexually Motivated Offense; Admissibility, No-Contest Plea; Expert Opinion – Reliance on Hearsay
State v. Albert M. Virsnieks, 2010AP1967, District 2 / 1, 6/21/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity
Virsnieks’ plea-based conviction for burglary supported ch. 980 commitment.
¶35 A Wis. Stat. ch. 980 petition must allege, among other things, that a “person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense.”[5] Wis. Stat. § 980.02(2)(a)1. A “[s]exually violent offense” is defined,
SVP – Evidence re: Screening Process and Postcommitment Treatment
State v. Scott Maher, 2010AP460, District 4, 5/26/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Maher: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Testimony from a State’s expert witness describing the ch. 980 screening process was irrelevant.
¶11 We addressed the issue of the admissibility of this same type of evidence in State v. Sugden, 2010 WI App 166,
Mental Commitment – “Fifth Standard”
Dane County v. Kelly M., 2011 WI App 69 (recommended for publication); for Kelly M.: Ruth N. Westmont, Ashley J. Richter; case activity
Kelly M. appeals a commitment order premised on the “fifth standard,” inability by reason of mental illness to understand the advantages and disadvantages of medication or treatment for the mental illness.
¶3 We conclude as follows: (1) Commitment is available under the fifth standard for individuals who have dual diagnoses—that is,
SVP Discharge Procedure: Post-Trial Changes in Actuarial Scoring
State v. Herbert O. Richard, 2011 WI App 66 (recommended for publication); for Richard: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Changes in the scoring of the actuarial test which was used to support Richard’s commitment at his original trial, cannot support his discharge petition even though his new score would reduce his predicted likelihood of reoffending.
¶13 Richard argues that the circuit court improperly dismissed his petition for discharge and that he is entitled to a discharge hearing.
Mental Commitment – insufficient evidence to show “proper subject for treatment”
Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2011 WI App 72(recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 50; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Alzheimer’s disease is not a qualifying mental condition for purposes of ch. 51 commitment, therefore Helen E.F. is not a proper subject for treatment as a matter of law. The disease is a degenerative brain disorder,
No specific diagnosis, but evidence sufficient to support recommitment and involuntary medication
Brown County v. Quinn M., 2010AP3162, District 3, 4/26/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Quinn M.: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to support extension of ch. 51 commitment upheld. 1. Mental illness. Expert testified that she was certain Quinn had a mental illness, though given his history of drug and alcohol use she could not provide a specific diagnosis with certainty.
SVP: Pre-Commitment Return to DOC Custody
State v. Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr. / State v. Price T. Hunt, 2011 WI App 61, affirmed 2012 WI 72 (recommended for publication); for Gilbert: William J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Hunt: Eric James Van Schyndle, Leah Stoecker, Allison E. Cimpl-Wiemer; case activity (Gilbert), case activity (Hunt); affirmed, 2012 WI 72
SVP – Pre-Commitment Return to DOC Custody
¶1 …
State v. Glen D. Nordberg, 2010AP1142, review granted 3/18/11
on bypass petition; for Nordberg: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Issue:
Whether someone under ch. 980 commitment as a sexually violent person bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the criteria for granting supervised release under § 980.08(4).
The court of appeals held, in State v. Rachel, 2010 WI App 60, 324 Wis. 2d 465, 782 N.W.2d 443,
Ch. 51 recommitment – evidence satisfied “if treatment were withdrawn” test
Rock County v. Henry J. V., 2010AP3044-FT, District 4, 3/17/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry J.V.: Steven D. Grunder, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to sustain extension of mental health commitment, as against argument respondent wasn’t shown to be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.
¶6 As Henry acknowledges, his proceeding was for an extension of his commitment, not for an original commitment,