Court Opinion

ID: 9399207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 14:13:36.236639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.100102
License: Public Domain

2023 WI 44

                  SUPREME COURT         OF   WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:              2020AP819-CR

COMPLETE TITLE:        State of Wisconsin,
                                 Plaintiff-Respondent,
                            v.
                       Wilson P. Anderson,
                                 Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.

                          REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
                          Reported at 307 Wis. 2d 244, 959 N.W.2d 93
                                     (2021 – unpublished)

OPINION FILED:         June 2, 2023
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:         April 17, 2023

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:              Circuit
   COUNTY:             Milwaukee
   JUDGE:              David A. Feiss

JUSTICES:
Per curiam. ROGGENSACK, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:

       For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs
filed by David J. Susens, assistant state public defender. There
was an oral argument by David J. Susens, assistant state public
defender.

       For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief filed by
Kara L. Janson, assistant attorney general, with whom on the
brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral
argument by Kara L. Janson, assistant attorney general.
    An amicus curiae brief was filed by James E. Goldschmidt,
Ellen E. Anderson, Elise A. Ashley, and Quarles & Brady LLP,
Milwaukee, for the National Disability Rights Network.

                               2
                                                                            2023 WI 44
                                                                    NOTICE
                                                      This opinion is subject to further
                                                      editing and modification.   The final
                                                      version will appear in the bound
                                                      volume of the official reports.
No.   2020AP819-CR
(L.C. No.    2020CM939)

STATE OF WISCONSIN                                :            IN SUPREME COURT

State of Wisconsin,

             Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                                                         FILED
      v.                                                             JUN 2, 2023

Wilson P. Anderson,                                                    Sheila T. Reiff
                                                                    Clerk of Supreme Court

             Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.

      REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.                      Reversed and

cause remanded.

      ¶1     PER CURIAM.       Wilson P. Anderson petitioned for review

of    a    court   of     appeals   decision,         State    v.    Anderson,        No.

2020AP819-CR,       unpublished     slip   op.    (Wis.       Ct.    App.    Mar.     16,

2021), that affirmed the circuit court's order authorizing the

involuntary administration of medication to restore Anderson's

competency.        In its briefing and arguments to this court, the

State conceded that "it failed to meet its burden under Sell" at

Anderson's      competency     hearing,     and       the     circuit       court     had

therefore erred when it ordered involuntary medication.                               See

Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003).                         Accordingly, we
summarily reverse the decision of the court of appeals, and
                                                               No.   2020AP819-CR

remand   the   cause   to   the   circuit    court     with    instructions    to

vacate the involuntary medication order.

    By   the    Court.—The    decision      of   the   court    of   appeals   is

reversed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court.

                                      2
                                                                   No.    2020AP819-CR

       ¶2        PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.            (dissenting).         Today

this court fails to perform its obligation to declare the law.

Instead, it sidesteps the significant legal questions parties

brought to us to decide and we accepted when we granted Wilson

P. Anderson's petition for review.                   Because I would decide at

least whether a psychiatrist is necessary to give an opinion on

medicines        that    are   sufficient       to   address    Anderson's    mental

illness and bring him to competency, I respectfully dissent from

this court's non-decision decision.

                                  I.   BACKGROUND

       ¶3        In March 2020, Anderson hit a stranger on the head

unprovoked, causing her bodily harm.                 Anderson was arrested, and

the State filed criminal charges against him the following day.

       ¶4        The circuit court ordered a competency report,1 which

Forensic Psychologist Dr. Debora L. Collins completed.                       As part

of her analysis, Dr. Collins reviewed the criminal complaint,

Anderson's medical records, and a summary of his interactions

with       the     Milwaukee     County         Behavioral      Health     Division.
Dr. Collins also administered a competency evaluation through

Anderson's cell door, due to Anderson's "level of agitation and

erratic      behavior."         Anderson    "shouted      and    yelled    comments"

throughout the evaluation.             Dr. Collins was "not assured" that

Anderson understood the purpose of the evaluation.                        Anderson's

responses frequently were "slurred, mumbled, and/or otherwise

incoherent."2           Officers conveyed to Dr. Collins that Anderson

       Honorable Dennis R. Cimpl of the Milwaukee County Circuit
       1

Court presided.
       2   R. 3 at 2, 3.
                                            1
                                                                                 No.    2020AP819-CR

fashioned his hand in the shape of a gun and pointed his hand at

officers the day before the evaluation.

     ¶5     Dr. Collins        filed        a       report          in     which       she    opined

Anderson     was     not     competent              to     understand             the        criminal

proceedings      against     him      or    to       aid       in        his     defense.        She

recommended      psychiatric         treatment           at     a    state        mental      health

institute       to   restore         competency           but        did         not    make     any

recommendations for involuntary medication.                                    Anderson was not

taking any medications at the time of his arrest, although he

had had more than 35 episodes of county care since 2011.                                         His

records    reflect    a    major      mental         illness             often    identified      as

Schizoaffective disorder.3

     ¶6     Anderson requested a contested competency hearing, and

the court4 ordered Dr. Collins to file an addendum to her report

specifically outlining her opinion as to Anderson's need for

involuntary medication.              Dr. Collins' addendum stated Anderson

was "not competent to make treatment decisions, including with

respect to psychotropic medications,"5 but Dr. Collins did not
provide    an   opinion    as    to     a       course        of     treatment,         medication

dosages, or potential side effects that Anderson may experience.

     ¶7     On April 9, 2020, the court held a hearing regarding

Anderson's      competency      to    stand         trial      and        whether      to    subject

     3   Id. at 3, 4.
     4 Honorable Frederick             C.        Rosa      of       the        Milwaukee      County
Circuit Court presided.
     5   R. 4 at 2.

                                                2
                                                                    No.     2020AP819-CR

Anderson to an order for involuntary medication.6                           Dr. Collins

was the only witness to testify.              As part of her testimony, she

answered various questions:

     Q     Dr. Collins, your degree is in psychology; is that
           right?

     A     Yes.

     Q     You have no medical training as a medical doctor;
           is that correct?

     A     I am not a medical doctor.           I'm a psychologist.

    Q     You are not able to prescribe medications to anyone
          at this time in the course of your present
          employment?

     A     That is correct.[7]
     ¶8      Anderson    did   not     object       to    Dr. Collins'       testimony

regarding     his     competency,      but   he     objected     to       Dr. Collins'

"medication order testimony."8               The court overruled Anderson's

objections and allowed Dr. Collins to testify "on both facets."9

The court issued an involuntary medication and commitment order.

The circuit court stayed the order for involuntary medication on

April 16, 2020.10
     ¶9      Anderson    appealed      the    order,       asking     the    court   of

appeals     "whether    the    State     offered         sufficient       evidence   to

     6 Honorable       David   Feiss    of    the    Milwaukee      County     Circuit
Court presided.
     7    R. 18 at 5, 6.
     8    Id. at 7.
     9    Id. at 8.
     10   R. 12 at 1.

                                         3
                                                                       No.    2020AP819-CR

support an order for involuntary medication under Sell v. United

States."11        The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's

involuntary commitment order in an unpublished decision.                              State

v. Anderson, No. 2020AP160-CR, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct.

App. Mar. 16, 2021).

      ¶10    Anderson    petitioned         this    court      for    review,    on    the

heels of State v. Green.               Because we granted Green's petition

for   review,      we   held    Anderson's         case   in    abeyance       until    we

released our opinion in Green on May 13, 2022.                         State v. Green,

2022 WI 30, 401 Wis. 2d 542, 973 N.W.2d 770.                     We ordered parties

in State v. Anderson to submit simultaneous letter briefs as to

whether our opinion in Green resolved their issues.

      ¶11    Anderson's        May    27,   2022     letter      brief       argued    our

decision in Green did not resolve his issues.                        He clarified that

"[he]      objects      only     to     the        court's      reliance        on     the

unconstitutional portions of [Wis. Stat.] § 971.14 [(2021-22)]12

and the state's failure to present a treatment plan and use

evidence from a licensed physician to prove the second, third,
and fourth Sell factors."             The State's letter brief of the same

day clarified the State's position:                   "[Anderson] contends that

Green      [396   Wis. 2d      658]    requires       the      State    to    offer     an

individualized treatment plan to satisfy the Sell factors. . . .

The State agrees with Anderson that the court of appeals here

erred by not applying Green when determining whether the State

      11   Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003).

       All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are
      12

to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise indicated.

                                            4
                                                                   No.     2020AP819-CR

proved the Sell factors."               We granted Anderson's petition for

review on September 13, 2022, ordered full briefing, and heard

oral argument on April 17, 2023.                   Despite all of the above,

today we disregard our constitutional function and we declare no

law.

                                  II.    DISCUSSION

                            A.    Standard of Review

       ¶12       We review whether the circuit court complied with the

constitutional overlay of Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166

(2003) to Wis. Stat. § 971.14 under the facts of this case as a

question of constitutional fact.                 As such, historic facts are

upheld unless clearly erroneous, and whether those facts satisfy

the constitutional standard in determination of the Sell factors

is a question of law for our independent review.                            State v.

Martwick, 2000 WI 5, ¶18, 231 Wis. 2d 801, 604 N.W.2d 552.

                            B.    General Principles

       ¶13       Wisconsin courts have a long history with criminal and

civil   commitment       orders,    as    well     as   orders    for     involuntary
medication in both contexts.               Despite this long history, many

questions remain unresolved.

       ¶14       In the criminal context (Wis. Stat. ch. 971), it is

likely that the substantial number of cases that have come to us

reflects     the     difficulty    imposed    on    circuit      courts    that   must

balance      a    prisoner's     significant     liberty      interest      to    avoid

forced medication against the State's significant interest in

prosecuting defendants for the commission of a serious crime.
Sell, 539 U.S. at 178 (quoting Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S.

                                          5
                                                                        No.   2020AP819-CR

210, 236 (1990)).            See e.g., State v. Anderson, No. 2020AP819-

CR, Green, 401 Wis. 2d 542, State v. Yakich, 2022 WI 8, 400

Wis. 2d 549, 970 N.W.2d 12, State v. Fitzgerald, 2019 WI 69, 387

Wis. 2d 384, 929 N.W.2d 165.

      ¶15    The     legal    terrain     reflects        the    complex      reality   of

involuntary        medication       orders        to    regain     competency.          In

Fitzgerald      we     comprehensively            reviewed       the     constitutional

foundation, as developed in case law.                     Id., ¶¶13-18.        There, we

underscored     the    root    of   an    individual's          "significant     liberty

interest" in avoiding antipsychotic drugs is secured by the Due

Process Clause.         Id., ¶13, (quoting Harper, 494 U.S. at 221).

We then summarized Sell, which announced a four-factor test "to

determine       whether         such         [involuntary]             medication       is

constitutionally        appropriate,"           and     which    also    asserted    that

"administration         of     drugs       solely         for     trial       competence

purposes . . . may be rare."               Fitzgerald, 387 Wis. 2d 384, ¶13

(citing Sell, 539 U.S. at 179, 180).

      ¶16    Accordingly,       the four-factor test announced in                    Sell
must be satisfied to meet the Constitution's high bar.                            Id. at

180-81.      First, the court "must find that important governmental

interests are at stake."              Id. at 180.           Second, the court must

conclude "that involuntary medication will significantly further

those [] state interests," by rendering the defendant competent

to   stand    trial,    but    also      that     the    drugs    are    "substantially

unlikely to have side effects that will interfere significantly

with the defendant's ability to assist counsel in conducting a
trial defense."         Id. at 181.              Third, the court must conclude

                                             6
                                                                       No.     2020AP819-CR

that the involuntary medication is "necessary to further those

interests" and that "any alternative, less intrusive treatments

are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results."                                  Id.

Fourth, the court must conclude that administration of the drugs

"is medically appropriate, i.e., in the patient's best medical

interest in light of his medical condition."                     Id.

       ¶17   In Wisconsin, the court of appeals interpreted Sell as

requiring an individualized treatment plan.                         Green, 396 Wis. 2d

658, ¶38.         We did not address this particular issue in our

review of Green, nor did we disturb it.                    Green, 401 Wis. 2d 542.

Accordingly, Wisconsin appears to continue to require that the

State   provide        an    individual      treatment       plan    when    considering

whether the second, third, and fourth Sell factors have been

met.    See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 188, 560 N.W.2d 246

(1997).

       ¶18   In   addition,      Wis.     Stat.     § 971.14        provides       for    pre-

trial   competency          procedures.       In   broad      strokes,       the    statute

requires examination of the defendant, a report, a hearing, and
commitment,       as    well    as   outlining      the      process    of     discharge.

However,     in        Fitzgerald,      we       held     § 971.14(3)(dm)            is     an

insufficient      standard      upon    which      to   base    forced       psychotropic

medications.       Fitzgerald, 387 Wis. 2d 384, ¶25.

       ¶19   We also reviewed each of the Sell factors in a way

that    demonstrates         medical    knowledge       is     required      to     provide

relevant testimony for some of those factors.                          For example, in

regard to the second Sell factor, "administration of the drugs
is substantially likely to render the defendant competent to

                                             7
                                                                No.     2020AP819-CR

stand     trial"     and   "unlikely     to   have    side   effects    that    will

interfere significantly with the defendant's ability to assist

counsel in conducting a trial defense."                Id., ¶27.      In regard to

the fourth Sell factor, the circuit court must find that the

medication is "medically appropriate," i.e., "in the patient's

best medical interest in light of his medical condition."                       Id.,

¶29 (quoting Sell, 539 U.S. at 181).

                           C.     Anderson's Commitment

         ¶20    Whether testimony from a psychologist satisfies Sell

is   a    question    we   have    not   addressed.      Anderson      brings   this

question to us squarely, as the circuit court ordered him to be

involuntarily medicated based on the testimony of Dr. Collins, a

psychologist.        He objected at the circuit court, claiming that

the testimony of a psychiatrist was necessary, and he objected

here for the same reason.

         ¶21    In my view, a psychologist's testimony, while relevant

to whether a defendant is incompetent to proceed to trial, is

not sufficient to provide relevant testimony on at least the
second and fourth Sell factors.               A medical doctor's testimony is

necessary, i.e., a psychiatrist's testimony is needed to meet

the standards in the second and fourth Sell factors.

         ¶22    By declining to address Anderson's question regarding

whether a psychologist is qualified to give testimony required

by at least some of the Sell factors, this court shirks its duty

to the parties and the public to declare what the law requires.

We also disserve those closest to the mentally ill, those who
seek     help    before    an   ill   individual      becomes   more    dangerous.

                                          8
                                                                       No.     2020AP819-CR

Today is another example of this court's increasing indifference

to the obligations imposed upon the Wisconsin Supreme Court as

an   institution.        I     dissent       because       I    would        fulfill    our

obligation    in    a   deeply       complicated          legal     terrain       and     of

incredible personal significance to those seeking guidance from

this court.

     ¶23    Instead, the court chooses simply to vacate Anderson's

involuntary    medication       order.        A    curious        exercise,       as    the

circuit court stayed it April 16, 2020.                        In addition, as the

State informed this court in May 2022:

          According to CCAP, on August 14, 2020, the
     circuit court entered an Order of Conversion to Civil
     Commitment    Proceedings     [u]nder     Wis.    Stat.
     § 971.14(6)(b).   Pursuant to that statute, a court
     that discharges a defendant from pretrial competency
     commitment 'may order that the defendant be taken
     immediately into custody by a law enforcement official
     and promptly delivered to a facility' for purposes of
     Chapter 51 or 55 proceedings. . . .      No action has
     been taken on the State's prosecution since that time.
Section      971.14(6)(a)        establishes           the        requirements           for

proceedings pursuant to paragraph b, and states, "If the court
determines that it is unlikely that the defendant will become

competent    within     the    remaining      commitment          period,       it     shall

discharge the defendant from the commitment and release him or

her, except as provided in par. (b)."

     ¶24    Wisconsin        Stat.    § 971.14(6)(b)              further       provides,

"Thereafter, detention of the defendant shall be governed by

s. 51.15, 51.45(11), or 55.135, as appropriate."                             Accordingly,

Anderson was discharged from the ch. 971 commitment and the
involuntary    medication       order    he       asked    us     to    review.         Any

                                         9
                                                                     No.        2020AP819-CR

subsequent civil commitment or involuntary medication order to

which   Anderson        may    currently      be   subject   is    not     part    of   the

record.

                 D.    Choosing to Ignore This Court's Obligation

      ¶25   Lastly, I address this court's per curiam decision.

The court states, "In its briefing and arguments to this court,

the State conceded that 'it failed to meet its burden under

Sell,' at Anderson's competency hearing, and the circuit court

had   therefore        erred    when     it   ordered    involuntary       medication."

That may be so, but the State made this concession in the very

letter briefing upon which this court ordered full briefing and

argument.

      ¶26   In        May     2022,     the   State     informed    this        court    it

"agree[d] with Anderson that the court of appeals here erred by

not applying Green when determining whether the State proved the

Sell factors."              There was nothing new this court could have

learned about the State's position from full briefing if the

court intended to decide the case on the State's concession, as
it does today.          But, by granting Anderson's petition for review

with the issue "Did the involuntary medication order violate due

process because the state failed to meet its burden to prove the

second, third, and fourth Sell factors by clear and convincing

evidence?" and ordering briefing, the parties likely understood

an issue on review would be one of testimonial qualifications or

of evidentiary sufficiency.

      ¶27   Anderson's briefing focused on the sufficiency of the
State's     evidence,         as   he    argued     testimony      from     a     licensed

                                              10
                                                                             No.     2020AP819-CR

physician was required to meet Sell.                              Why now has the court

refused to address at least this question?                               It is a recurring

issue in commitment cases.

      ¶28    I        am     deeply      troubled       by     this     court's      increasing

reluctance        to       fulfill       its      obligation       as   a    court      of    law-

declaration.           There are circuit courts serving all 72 counties

in this state.               Parties may exercise appellate rights in the

courts of appeal, whose "primary function is error correcting."

Cook, 208 Wis. 2d at 188.                         Wisconsin's four courts of appeal

"function        as    a     single     court."         In   re    Court     of     Appeals,    82

Wis. 2d 369, 371, 263 N.W.2d 149 (1978).

      ¶29    But the Supreme Court is the only court in Wisconsin

primarily tasked with "law defining."                          Cook, 208 Wis. 2d at 189.

This is the only court with the purpose of "oversee[ing] and

implement[ing] the statewide development of the law," and the

"only   state          court      with      the    power     to    overrule,        modify,     or

withdraw language from a previous supreme court case."                                  Id.

      ¶30    Today, this court elects to do nothing despite the
awesome responsibility——the obligation——to oversee and implement

law   declaration            in    Wisconsin.           I    regret     that      the   parties'

efforts     to    inform          us   of   the     legal    issues     presented        fell   on

inattentive           ears    and      that    they     have      received     no    thoughtful

response from this court.

                                       III.       CONCLUSION

      ¶31    Today this court disregards its obligation to declare

the law.          Instead, it conveniently sidesteps the significant
legal questions parties brought to us to decide and we accepted

                                                   11
                                                  No.   2020AP819-CR

when we granted Anderson's petition for review.   Because I would

decide at least whether a psychiatrist is necessary to give an

opinion on medicines that are sufficient to address Anderson's

mental illness, I respectfully dissent from this court's non-

decision decision.

                               12
    No.   2020AP819-CR

1