≡ Menu

4. Competency of defendant

Go: here… Read more

{ 0 comments }

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, 229 Wis. 2d at… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Competency: Discharge / Reevaluation

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… Read more

{ 0 comments }

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     …  At issue… Read more

{ 0 comments }

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 Michael J. Hager v. Marten, 226 Wis.2d 687, 594 N.W.2d 791 (1999), affirming unpublished decision For Hager, Gerhardt F. Getzin, SPD, Wausau Issue: Whether the § 971.14(2) time limit, requiring completion of competency exam w/in 15 days “of the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… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Competency: Burden of Proof

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… Read more

{ 0 comments }

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… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS