Court Opinion

ID: 9737731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:33:24.268496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:00.963692
License: Public Domain

*241SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
¶ 76. (concurring). We granted review in this case to reconsider the standard of review of a circuit court's determination of competency announced in State v. Garfoot, 207 Wis. 2d 214, 558 N.W.2d 626 (1997).1 On reconsideration I conclude, as I did in my concurrence in Garfoot, that "a determination of competency, a determination of constitutional fact, should be decided by this court independently of the decisions of a circuit court or court of appeals, yet benefiting from the analy-ses of those courts and the observational advantage of the circuit court." Garfoot, 207 Wis. 2d at 231-32. The reasons for my conclusion are set forth in my Garfoot concurrence.
¶ 77. An issue raised in the petition and briefs in the present case, but not reached by the court, is whether the court of appeals is bound by the rules announced in its own published decision when this court has reversed the published decision on unrelated, independent grounds. Also unclear is the lasting effect, if any, of all or part of a court of appeals decision that has been reviewed by this court and affirmed. A decision by this court on these issues will have to await another cáse or a rule-making procedure.
¶ 78. For the reasons set forth I join the mandate but write separately.

 For the reasons that the Garfoot majority opinion was viewed as being in jeopardy, see State v. Byrge, 225 Wis. 2d 702, 711 n.2, 594 N.W.2d 388 (Ct. App. 1999).