On Point blog, page 7 of 60
COA affirms 51 extension order in fact-intensive opinion
Winnebago County v. D.S., 2023AP1484, 1/24/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a fact-dependent appeal, COA holds that the evidence was sufficient and the trial court’s findings adequate to uphold this 51 extension order.
COA rejects challenges to sufficiency of evidence for 51 extension, involuntary med order
Winnebago County v. T.M.G., 2023AP681, 1/24/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite T.M.G.’s challenges, COA affirms this extension and related medication order applying what it believes to be well-settled precedent.
COA rejects important competency challenge in protective placement appeal as a result of litigant’s failure to object below
Douglas County v. M.L, 2022AP141, 12/28/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Faced with a challenge to the circuit court’s competency in this protective placement appeal, COA holds that the appellant has forfeited his challenge and therefore affirms.
COA rejects challenges to recommitment and involuntary medication
Ozaukee County D.H.S. v. M.A.G., 2023AP681, 11/29/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.A.G. challenged the extension of her Chapter 51 commitment and the order finding her incompetent to refuse medication. The court of appeals affirms both orders after concluding that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the the third standard and sufficient evidence that she is not competent to refuse medication.
COA says no medical testimony necessary to continue ch. 55 protective placement
Douglas County v. J.M., 2022AP2035, 11/28/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“James” was subjected to a guardianship under ch. 54 and a protective placement under ch. 55 in 2020. He had annual reviews of placement in 2021 and 2022; the last one is the subject of this appeal. James argues that the county was obligated to put on medical expert testimony to meet its burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he meets three of the elements for a protective placement (he does not dispute that he is an adult who’s been found incompetent, the remaining element). The court of appeals delves into the record of past hearings and holds that these older filings fill in the gaps. But isn’t the point of a due-process (Watts) review to determine how the person is doing now?
COA reverses in another D.J.W. win for failure to make specific factual findings
Winnebago County v. A.P.D., 2023AP863, 12/13/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another defense win reliant on Langlade County v. D.J.W., COA holds that the circuit court failed to make adequate findings in this Chapter 51 appeal.
SCOW accepts review of important case which could clarify the “ground rules” for involuntary medication appeals
Winnebago County v. D.E.W., 2023AP215, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; dismissed as improvidently granted 5/14/24, case activity (including briefs)
SCOW accepts a case poised to resolve ongoing conflict in COA with respect to involuntary medication orders in Chapter 51 appeals.
COA rejects loss of competency claim in protective placement appeal
Racine County v. B.L.M., 2023AP757, 11/22/23, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite a creative challenge to a continued protective placement order, COA rejects any argument that the circuit court lost competency by failing to timely reappoint a GAL in this protective placement appeal.
Federal court denies habeas relief for “sane but dangerous” NGI-acquittee; offers novel interpretation of Randall I
Graham L. Stowe v. Gregory Van Rybroek, 18-CV-400-wmc (W.D. Wis. 11/6/23).
Having recently prevailed on a judicial bias claim in state court, Stowe makes a return appearance to the blog on his 2018 federal habeas petition. Unfortunately, the Western District of Wisconsin denied the petition, which had been pending for close 5 years. The petition sought relief from the Wisconsin courts’ denial of his 2016 petition for conditional release under Wis. Stat. § 971.17(4)(d). In a novel reading of a nearly three-decades old Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, State v. Randall, 192 Wis. 2d 800, 532 N.W.2d 94 (1995) (“Randall I”), the federal court concludes that “one can reasonably read Randall I to require a showing of both mental illness and dangerousness.”
Challenge to involuntary medication order fails
Sawyer County v. P.D.F., 2022AP2007, 11/7/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although P.D.F. successfully persuades COA that the circuit court erroneously concluded he did not understand the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives to medication, the record nonetheless shows that he was incapable of applying an understanding.