On Point blog, page 1 of 1
SCOW will review more constitutional challenges to ch. 51’s recommitment scheme
Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2018AP1887, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 7/24/20; case activity
Issues presented:
- Did the circuit court lose competency to conduct a recommitment hearing because the County did not file the evaluation of K.E.K. at least 21 days before the expiration of her commitment, as required by § 51.20(13)(g)2r.?
- Is the recommitment standard in § 51.20(1)(am) facially unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment because it violates the guarantees of substantive due process and equal protection of the law or abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens?
- Is the recommitment standard in § 51.20(1)(am) unconstitutional as applied to K.E.K.?
SCOW: Six-person jury for involuntary mental commitment survives equal protection challenge
Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity
Majority opinion by Justice Crooks; concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson; additional concurrence by Justice Ziegler (joined by Justices Roggensack and Gableman)
The issues in this case spring from State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279, 318-319, 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995)(“persons committed under Chapters 51 and 980 are similarly situated for purposes of equal protection comparison) and State v.
Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, petition for review granted, 2/11/13
Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Issues (composed by On Point)
1. Whether there was sufficient proof that Mary F.-R. evidenced a “substantial probability of physical harm” to herself or others and was therefore dangerous under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)(2).
2. Whether Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11) is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection because it provides for a jury of six in ch.
Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence -Jury of Six
Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, District 1, 10/2/12; court of appeals (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13; case activity
Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence
Evidence held sufficient to uphold commitment, on issue of “dangerousness,” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, (1990), applied:
¶12 Here,
Equal Protection – Statutory Ineligibility for Earned Release Program
State v. Gerald L. Lynch, Jr., 2006 WI App 231, PFR filed 11/6/06
For Lynch: David R. Karpe
Issue: Whether statutory ineligibility for Earned Release, § 973.01(3g), for homicide by intoxicated use violates equal protection given eligibility for driving while intoxicated but not causing death or great bodily harm.
Holding:
¶18 Applying this standard, we conclude there is a rational basis for not allowing persons convicted of crimes under Wis.
Due Process – Sex Offender Registration Juvenile – Constitutionality
State v. Jeremy P., 2005 WI App 13
For Jeremy P.: Adam B. Stephens
Issue/Holding: Because mandatory sex offender registration for certain juvenile offenders, §§ 938.34(15m)(bm) and 301.45(1m), is not punishment it does not violate procedural due process, ¶¶8-15. The court’s retention of discretion in administering registration defeats a substantive due process claim, ¶22. An equal protection argument, based on claim of children-as-supsect-class, is also rejected, ¶¶23-29.
OWI – Sentencing – Differential, County-Based Guidelines
State v. Roland Smart, 2002 WI App 240
For Smart: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether sentencing-guideline disparity for driving while intoxicated under guidelines adopted by local counties pursuant to § 346.65(2m) violates equal protection or due process.
Holding: Sentencing guideline disparities need be supported only by rational basis for equal protection purposes, as “(i)t is not a fundamental right to be free from deprivations of liberty as a result of arbitrary distinctions.”
Equal Protection – Differential, County-Based Sentencing Guidelines
State v. Roland Smart, 2002 WI App 240, PFR filed 9/24/02
For Smart: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether sentencing-guideline disparity for driving while intoxicated under guidelines adopted by local counties pursuant to § 346.65(2m) violates equal protection or due process.
Holding: Sentencing guideline disparities need be supported only by rational basis for equal protection purposes, as “(i)t is not a fundamental right to be free from deprivations of liberty as a result of arbitrary distinctions.”
Equal Protection – Sex Offender Registration – Juvenile – False Imprisonment
State v. Joseph E.G., 2001 WI App 29, 240 Wis. 2d 481, 623 N.W.2d 137
For Joseph E.G.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether § 301.45(1m) (1997-98) violates equal protection and substantive due process in failing to excuse juveniles convicted of false imprisonment from sex offender registration.
Holding:
¶12 In contrast to the facts that could relieve an offender from registration for those crimes enumerated in WIS.