On Point blog, page 54 of 60
Mental Health Commitment – “Fifth Standard” – Constitutionality
State v. Dennis H., 2002 WI 104, on certification
For Dennis H.: Ellen Henak, SPD Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether the “fifth standard” for mental commitment, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e. (roughly: refusing treatment due to incapacity for making rational treatment decision), is constitutional.
Holding: The statute isn’t vague — the state must prove the various “elements” of this standard (which the court spells out and won’t be repeated here).
Protective Placement – County’s Obligation to Find and Fund Placement
Dunn County v. Judy K., 2002 WI 87, on certification
Issue: Whether a county is required to find an fund an appropriate placement under § 55.06(9)(a).
Holding:
¶28. We therefore determine that in protective placements pursuant to § 55.06(9)(a), counties must make an affirmative showing of a good faith, reasonable effort to find an appropriate placement and to secure funding to pay for an appropriate placement.
SVP Commitments – Evidence: Issue Preclusion & Attack on Qualifying Conviction
State v. Ronald G. Sorenson, 2002 WI 78, affirming as modified, 2001 WI App 251, 248 Wis. 2d 237, 635 N.W.2d 787
For Sorenson: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue: Whether, given the constitutional protections afforded Ch. 980 respondents, issue preclusion applies so as to prevent Sorenson from attacking the reliability of his qualifying conviction with evidence that the complainant subsequently recanted.
Holding:
¶22.
Defense win – circuit court lost competency due to incorrect computation of time Limit for probable cause hearing
Dodge County v. Ryan E.M., 2002 WI App 71
For Ryan E.M.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the 72-hour deadline, necessary for the court’s competency over the ch. 51 commitment proceeding, is measured from the subject’s time of detention. (“¶4. The issue in this case is whether the method of computing time set forth in Wis. Stat. § 990.001(4)(a) and (d), in which the first day is excluded,
Protective Services – Competence of Court following Untimely Probable Cause Hearing
Kindcare, Inc. v. Judith G., 2002 WI App 36
Issue/Holding:
¶3 The issue presented by this appeal is whether the circuit court loses competence to adjudicate a person’s need for protective placement if the probable-cause hearing is not held within seventy-two hours after the person was taken into custody, or whether, as the trial court determined, the seventy-two-hours clock can be reset by the simple expedient of filing a new petition for protective placement.
Protective Services – Personal Presence of Alleged Incompetent
Knight and Knight v. Milwaukee Co., 2002 WI App 194
Issue/Holding: A trial court lacks competency to enter orders with respect to an alleged incompetent, unless the g.a.l. certifies the specific reasons the person can’t attend, pursuant to § 880.08(1).
NGI — Revocation — Timeliness of Petition
State v. George Schertz, 2002 WI App 289
For Schertz: Barbara A. Cadwell
Issue/Holding: The provision in § 971.17(3)(e) for hearing within 30 days a petition for revocation of NGI conditional release is directory, not mandatory. ¶¶7-14.
SVP Commitment: Claim/Issue Preclusion – Prior Dismissal of Petition at Trial for Insufficient Proof
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a 980 petition was barred because a prior petition was dismissed at trial for insufficient proof, but the respondent was subsequently returned to prison on a parole revocation for a violation not involving an act of sexual violence.
Holding:
¶22. Although Parrish’s preclusion argument presents an issue of first impression in Wisconsin,
SVP: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Failure to Obtain Expert – Lack of Prejudice
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The trial court’s rejection of respondent’s post-commitment proffer of an expert, in support of a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not securing an expert, is sustained, due in particular to the trial court’s conclusion that the proffered expert would not have altered the outcome: “that judge,
SVP Commitments: Conditions of Confinement: Blanket Policy of Restraint During Transport
Richard Thielman v. Leean, 2002 WI App 33
Companion case: Thielman v. Leean, 282 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2002)For Thielman: Mary Kennelly
Issue/Holding:
¶1. The Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) appeals the circuit court’s order enjoining DHFS from transporting Richard Thielman and similarly committed ch. 980 patients to and from treatment facilities such as Wisconsin Resource Center (WRC) in full restraints without first making individualized determinations that restraints are needed during transport.