On Point blog, page 6 of 60
SCOW affirms denial of supervisory writ, seeks to clarify “preferred” appellate procedure to challenge denied substitution request
State ex rel. Antonio S. Davis v. Circuit Court for Dane County, the Honorable Ellen K. Berz and State of Wisconsin, 2024 WI 14, 3/26/24; case activity
A majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirms the court of appeals’ denial of Davis’ petition for a supervisory writ after concluding the the circuit court had no “plain duty” to treat Davis’ request for substitution as timely under Wis. Stat. § 971.20(4). The court also uses the decision to clarify that a petition for a supervisory writ is not the preferred vehicle to seek appellate review of a circuit court’s denial of a request for substitution that was filed after arraignment. Op, ¶11.
Court rejects usual attacks to 51 extension, medication order and affirms
Racine County v. C.B., 2023AP2018-FT, 3/20/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a factually-specific appeal of a recommitment order, COA rejects all of C.B.’s arguments and affirms.
In a DJW loss, COA generates uncertainty about such claims
Waukesha County v. G.M.M., 2023AP1359, 3/13/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In an appeal presenting a straightforward D.J.W. claim, COA affirms while also giving credence to harmless error arguments.
COA rejects attempt to use plain error doctrine to challenge hearsay evidence in 51 appeal
Portage County v. D.P.W.O., 2023AP1975, 3/7/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another appeal challenging the use of hearsay statements contained within an examiner’s report, COA rejects D.P.W.O.’s attempt to use the plain error doctrine to prove that this unpreserved error merits reversal of the extension order.
Defense Win! Yet another DJW reversal
Winnebago County v. T.S., 2023AP1267, 3/6/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another 51 appeal attacking the sufficiency of the circuit court’s findings, COA rejects the County’s arguments and reverses.
COA rejects challenges to finding of dangerousness, incompetency to refuse medication and upholds trial court’s decision to admit expert’s report at 51 hearing
Winnebago County v. C.J.H., 2023AP1263, 3/6/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a 51 appeal presenting several commonly litigated issues, COA finds no error and affirms.
COA rejects D.J.W. claim on barest of findings; continues handwringing about influx of Ch. 51 appeals
Winnebago County v. B.R.C., 2023AP1842, 2/14/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In quite the head-scratcher, the court of appeals rejects a D.J.W. “specific factual findings” claim while acknowledging that such claims “are multiplying and it is clear that all sides could benefit from clarity on the point.” (Emphasis added). The court then proceeds to offer a step-by-step guide guide for circuit courts to make D.J.W. findings that will be “less likely to be overturned on appeal.” While the circuit court’s findings at issue don’t come close to any such model of clarity, the court holds that they were “sufficient” to allow the court conduct a “meaningful review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion and the evidence presented at the hearing.” Op., ¶21.
Defense Win! COA troubled that circuit courts are still failing to comply with D.J.W.
Manitowoc County HSD v. B.M.T., 2022AP2079 & 2023AP904, 2/21/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In this consolidated appeal from successive orders extending B.M.T.’s civil commitment, the court of appeals rejects B.M.T.’s claim that the circuit court lacked competency to enter the 2022 order, but agrees that the circuit court failed to comply with D.J.W.’s requirement “to make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based.” As a result, the court “must” reverse the 2023 commitment order and the corresponding order for involuntary medication. Op., ¶30.
Defense Win! County failed to present sufficient evidence of dangerousness at 51 extension hearing
Winnebago County v. J.D.J., 2023AP1085, 2/21/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another opinion which stresses the need for County-petitioners to take more care at extension hearings, COA reverses for failure to make an adequate record below.
COA affirms expired Ch. 51 order for involuntary medication
Douglas County v. K.A.D., 2023AP1072, 2/13/24, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 6/17/24 case activity
K.A.D. (“Kyle”) challenged the order authorizing his involuntary medication and treatment on two grounds: (1) that the county failed to establish that he was provided the required explanation regarding the recommended medication and treatment and (2) that the county failed to prove he is incompetent to refuse medication and treatment. While the court of appeals assumes without deciding that Kyle’s appeal is moot, the court concludes that Kyle’s case meets an exception to the mootness doctrine, and thereafter rejects Kyle’s argument on the merits.