COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED AUGUST 6, 1996 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62(1), Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-1047
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
IN THE MATTER OF THE
MENTAL COMMITMENT OF
JOANNE C.:
MARINETTE COUNTY,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
JOANNE C.,
Respondent-Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of
the circuit court for Marinette County:
CHARLES D. HEATH, Judge. Reversed.
CANE, P.J. Joanne C. appeals a six-month commitment
order dated September 14, 1995, and an order denying her postcommitment
motion. She has been subsequently recommitted
for a period of one year, and that commitment is not subject to this
appeal. On appeal, she contends: (1) the trial court lost competency to
proceed when it failed to hold a final commitment hearing within fourteen days
of her jury demand in Brown County; (2) her waiver of counsel was not knowingly
and voluntarily made on the morning of trial; and (3) the form of the jury
verdict which presented in a single question separate and independent grounds
for commitment denied her a right to a jury verdict by five-sixths of the jury.
Joanne has filed a brief
supporting her contentions. The County,
however, has filed a letter with this court indicating that it agrees with the
factual circumstances recited in Joanne's brief and declines to file a
brief. The County does not dispute any
of Joanne's arguments or contend the appeal is moot. Nor does it make any argument in support of the trial court's
order for Joanne's commitment. In State
ex rel. Blank v. Gramling, 219 Wis. 196, 199, 262 N.W. 614, 615 (1935),
and Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Sec. Corp., 90 Wis.2d
97, 108-09, 279 N.W.2d 493, 499 (Ct. App. 1979), the supreme court and court of
appeals concluded that when respondents on appeal do not undertake to refute
the appellant's propositions, those propositions are taken as confessed. Consequently, because the respondent in this
case, the County, has declined to refute Joanne's contentions, the orders for
commitment are reversed.
By the Court.—Orders
reversed.
This opinion will not be
published. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.