### COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 7, 2019

Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See W IS . S TAT . § 808.10 and R ULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2019AP297 Cir. Ct. No. 2018ME87 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT II

I N THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL COMMITMENT OF R.CJ.Y.:
O ZAUKEE C OUNTY , P ETITIONER -A PPELLANT ,

V . R.CJ.Y.,

R ESPONDENT -R ESPONDENT .

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Ozaukee County: JOSEPH W. VOILAND, Judge. Affirmed

.No. 2019AP297

2 ¶1 REILLY, P.J. 1 On October 22, 2018, Ozaukee County filed a Statement of Emergency Detention by Law Enforcement Officer against R.CJ.Y. 2 A probable cause hearing was scheduled for October 24, 2018. Purs uant to W IS

. S TAT . § 51.20(8)(bg), a settlement agreement was entered into in which R.CJ.Y. agreed to waive the probable cause hearing and agreed to a treatment plan for a ninety-day period. The court approved the settlement agreement.
¶2 On January 15, 2019, one week before expiration of the settlement agreement, the County filed a Statement of Noncompliance with Set tlement Agreement per W IS

. S TAT . § 51.20(8)(bm) and asked the court to schedule a “final hearing.” The County did not request a probable cause hearing despi te R.CJ.Y. being detained. At the final hearing, R.CJ.Y. moved to dismiss on the gr ounds that the court lacked competency as no probable cause hearing w as held. The court ultimately granted the motion, released R.CJ.Y., and dismiss ed the County’s W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 51 action. The County appeals.
¶3 We affirm. The language of the statute is clear. See State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty. , 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. The parties entered into a ninety-day settlement agre ement per W IS

. S TAT . § 51.20(8)(bg) in which R.CJ.Y. waived his right to have a probable cause hearing. When the County filed the Statement of Noncomplia nce with Settlement Agreement in January 2019, § 51.20(8)(bm) required the court t o conduct a probable cause hearing if one had not been held prior to ent ry of the

1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to W IS

. S TAT

. § 752.31(2)(d) (2017-18). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version u nless otherwise noted.

2 “The filing of the statement [of emergency detention] has the same effect as a petition for commitment under [W IS

. S TAT

. §] 51.20.” W IS

. S TAT

. § 51.15(4)(b), (5).No. 2019AP297

3 settlement agreement and the person is detained: “If the subjec t individual is detained under this paragraph, the court shall hold a probable cause hearing within 72 hours from the time that the person is taken into custody under [W IS

. S TAT

. §] 51.15 for this paragraph.” Section 51.20(8)(bm) goes on to explain that if a probable cause hearing was held prior to the sett lement agreement, then a probable cause hearing is not required at the time of the nonco mpliance and a final hearing is to be scheduled. The County did not request a probable ca use hearing and one was not held prior to the final hearing, which violates the statute.
¶4 A court which fails to hold a probable cause hearing within seventytwo hours of detention loses competency to proceed. See Dodge Cty. v. Ryan E.M. , 2002 WI App 71, ¶5, 252 Wis. 2d 490, 642 N.W.2d 592. As no probable cause hearing was held within seventy-two hours of the County’s filing of the Statement of Noncompliance with Settlement Agreement and as no probable cause hearing was held prior to the entry of the settlement agreement, the court properly found that it did not have competency at the final hearing and appro priately released R.CJ.Y. and dismissed the County’s W IS

. S TAT

. ch. 51 action against R.CJ.Y. 3 We affirm.
By the Court. —Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

3 We need not address R.CJ.Y.’s mootness argument as the merits dictate affirmance. We may decide moot issues under certain circumstances. See Outagamie Cty. v. Melanie L. , 2013 WI 67, ¶80, 349 Wis. 2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607.