Winnebago Cnty. v. Christopher S. (In re Christopher S.)

• Citation: 878 N.W.2d 109,366 Wis.2d 1,2016 WI 1
• Decision Date: 05 January 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2014AP1048.,2014AP1048.
• Parties: In the matter of the MENTAL COMMITMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S. Winnebago County, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Christopher S., Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

366 Wis.2d 1
878 N.W.2d 109
2016 WI 1

In the matter of the MENTAL COMMITMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S.

Winnebago County, Petitioner–Respondent,
v.
Christopher S., Respondent–Appellant.

No. 2014AP1048.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Argued Sept. 18, 2015.
Decided Jan. 5, 2016.

878 N.W.2d 111

For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs by Kaitlin A. Lamb, assistant state public defender and oral argument by Kaitlin A. Lamb.

For the petitioner-respondent, there was a brief by James A. Kearney, assistant

878 N.W.2d 112

corporation counsel, and oral argument by James A. Kearney.

An amicus curiae brief was filed by Maura F.J. Whelan, assistant attorney general, and Brad D. Schimel, attorney general, on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Justice.

ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS

MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J.

366 Wis.2d 8

¶ 1 This is a review of a circuit court's¹ order for the involuntary commitment of an inmate to a mental health facility, order for the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication and treatment to that inmate, and order denying postcommitment relief. The involuntary commitment of an inmate of the Wisconsin state prison system for mental health care is governed by Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(ar) (2013–14).² The involuntary administration

366 Wis.2d 9

of medication or treatment³ to an individual is

366 Wis.2d 10

governed by Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(g).⁴ While Christopher S. ("Christopher") was serving his sentence for mayhem, Winnebago County filed a petition for the examination

878 N.W.2d 113

of a state prison inmate pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(ar). The County sought commitment in the Wisconsin Resource Center ("WRC")⁵

366 Wis.2d 11

because Christopher was suffering from mental illness and because the WRC could meet Christopher's treatment needs. In addition, the County filed a petition for the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication and treatment pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(g) 4 b.

¶ 2 The circuit court granted the County's petition for the involuntary commitment of Christopher for mental health care as well as the County's petition for the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication and treatment to Christopher. Christopher filed a postcommitment motion challenging both orders. The circuit court denied the motion, and Christopher appealed. The court of appeals certified the case to this court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.61. We accepted certification on May 11, 2015.

¶ 3 Christopher makes three arguments on appeal. First, he argues that Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(ar) violates his substantive due process rights and is, therefore, facially unconstitutional. More specifically, Christopher claims that Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(ar) is unconstitutional because it authorizes the involuntary commitment of an inmate without first finding the inmate dangerous.

¶ 4 Second, Christopher argues in the alternative that if we refuse to hear his constitutional challenge, we should consider whether his trial attorney

366 Wis.2d 12

performed ineffectively by failing to challenge the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(ar). Christopher makes clear that he raises his ineffective assistance of counsel argument only if we refuse to hear his constitutional challenge. Because we address the merits of Christopher's constitutional claim,⁶ we will not address his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

878 N.W.2d 114

¶ 5 Third, Christopher contends that the circuit court erred when it concluded that Christopher was incompetent to refuse psychotropic medication and treatment pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(g). Christopher relies on our decision in Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, 349 Wis.2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607, to challenge the way the circuit court applied the evidence presented at the involuntary medication and treatment hearing to the requirements contained in Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(g). More specifically, Christopher argues that the evidence presented at the involuntary medication and treatment hearing did not support a finding that the County complied with the statutory requirements contained in Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(g) 4 b.

¶ 6 We pause briefly to point out what Christopher does not argue. Christopher does not make an as applied challenge against Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(ar), the inmate commitment statute.⁷ Additionally

366 Wis.2d 13

, Christopher does not in any way challenge the constitutionality of the involuntary medication or treatment statute, Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(g).

¶ 7 We proceed to consider two issues raised by Christopher. The first is whether Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(ar) violates an inmate's substantive due process rights and is, therefore, facially unconstitutional. The second is whether the circuit court erred when it found that Winnebago County established by clear and convincing evidence that Christopher was incompetent to refuse psychotropic medication and treatment.

¶ 8 As to the first issue, we hold that Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1) (ar) is facially constitutional because it is reasonably related to the State's legitimate interest in providing care and assistance to inmates suffering from mental illness. As to the second issue, we affirm the circuit court because it did not err when it found by clear and convincing evidence that Christopher was incompetent to refuse psychotropic medication and treatment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 9 At all times relevant to these proceedings, Christopher was an inmate of the Wisconsin state prison system. In 2005, Christopher was convicted of mayhem as a repeater, in violation of

366 Wis.2d 14

Wis. Stat. § 940.21 (2001–02).⁸ As a result of his conviction, Christopher was sentenced to twenty years of confinement, consisting of ten years of incarceration followed by ten years of extended supervision.

¶ 10 In 2012, Fox Lake Correctional Institution received a complaint from Christopher that his cellmate sexually assaulted him. Subsequent to his complaint, Fox Lake Correctional Institution transferred

878 N.W.2d 115

Christopher to the WRC in Winnebago County.

¶ 11 Dr. Michlowski, medical director for the WRC, spoke with Christopher soon after he was admitted. Dr. Michlowski outlined his conversation with Christopher in a letter to Mr. Bartow, director of the WRC. In the letter, Dr. Michlowski wrote, "[Christopher] understood that he was being referred to the WRC because he is ‘being commissioned’ by the ‘military command to produce castings,’ for ‘engineering purposes.’ " Subsequent interactions between Christopher and WRC personnel revealed that Christopher believed he was "programmed by ‘Special Operations,’ " and he "insisted that there [were] chips in his hands and shoulder." Eventually, doctors x-rayed Christopher's hand in an effort to convince Christopher of his need for psychotropic medication.⁹ The x-ray came back normal, but Christopher disregarded it because "the x-ray can't penetrate Beryllium."

¶ 12 In his letter, Dr. Michlowski also informed Mr. Bartow of an incident that occurred on September

366 Wis.2d 15

16, 2012. On that day, an officer at the WRC ordered Christopher to eat in the dayroom. Christopher refused that order and began to "posture and loudly indicate that the officer giving him the order had raped [Christopher] while [Christopher] was in the military." Dr. Michlowski requested via his letter that "[the County] petition the court to find that [Christopher] is suffering from a major mental illness (presently psychotic)." In that same letter, Dr. Michlowski mentioned that Christopher was seeing Dr. Keshena but that Christopher "made it clear to [Dr. Keshena] that he does not believe he has any psychotic problems." Finally, Dr. Michlowski opined that "[Christopher] is clearly delusional at this time and although he did consider taking medication several weeks ago, his illness at this time is clearly precluding him from acting in his own best interest."

¶ 13 On November 2, 2012, Dr. Maria Murgia de Moore conducted a two-hour clinical interview with Christopher. She did so at the request of the WRC. Based on this interview, a review of the WRC's records, and discussions with WRC staff, Dr. Murgia de Moore concluded that Christopher "suffers from a major mental illness (Psychotic Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified) that is characterized by disorganized speech, disorganized thinking, delusions, and poor judgment." Finally, Dr. Murgia de Moore recommended that Christopher be committed and further recommended that he be treated with appropriate...