On Point: A. For trial

7th circuit decision; on appeal after remand, Eric D. Holmes v. Buss, 506 F.3d 576 (7th Cir 2007)

Competency of Petitioner, While Pursuing Habeas Relief

Given that petitioner is clearly incompetent (“He is deeply confused, obsessed, and delusional”) court orders habeas proceeding suspended until state shows his condition sufficiently improved.

This is a death penalty case, and the decision in the prior appeal indicated that it had “found no noncapital case in which such a claim (petitioner’s incompetency,

State v. Ronald D. Luttrell, 2008 WI App 93
For Luttrell: Steven Prifogle, SPD, Milwaukee Trial

Issue: Whether a ch. 980 SVP respondent is entitled to § 971.14 competency evaluation.

Holding:

¶8        It is true, of course, that both Wis. Stat. § 971.13 and Wis. Stat. § 971.14 once applied to Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitments, see Smith,

State v. Keith M. Carey , 2004 WI App 83, PFR filed 4/22/04
For Carey: Paul LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶10. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.14(5)(a), if the court finds that a defendant is not competent, but is likely to become competent, it may commit the defendant to the custody of the department of health and family services for a period of time not to exceed twelve months or the maximum sentence for the most serious offense with which the defendant is charged,

State v. Jeffrey J. Meeks, 2003 WI 104, overruling State v. Jeffrey J. Meeks,
For Meeks: Christopher T. Van Wagner

Issue: Whether the trial court, in ruling on competency, improperly relied on its perceptions of the defendant’s attorney in a prior case, in stressing that that attorney hadn’t raised competency.

Holding:

¶1     … 

State ex rel. Michael J. Hager v. Marten, 226 Wis.2d 687, 594 N.W.2d 791 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Hager, Gerhardt F. Getzin, SPD, Wausau

Issue: Whether the § 971.14(2) time limit, requiring completion of competency exam w/in 15 days “of the arrival of the defendant at the inpatient facility,” was violated.

Holding: Resolution turns on whether the court specifically ordered an inpatient exam. No written order was entered,

State v. Leo E. Wanta, 224 Wis.2d 679, 592 N.W.2d 645 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Wanta: James M. Shellow

HOLDING: Wanta argues that Wis. Stat. § 971.14(4)(b) is unconstitutional, because it requires proof of incompetence by clear and convincing evidence when the defendant claims that s/he is competent (vs. proof of competency by mere greater weight of evidence when the defendant claims incompetence). The court construes the challenge to be one of equal protection.

State v. Michael W. Farrell, 226 Wis.2d 447, 595 N.W.2d 64 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Farrell: Kevin M. Schram

Holding: Finding of incompetency subsequent to plea proceeding is a factor to consider but in and of itself neither creates doubt as to prior competency nor requires retrospective competency hearing.