District IV
February 19, 2013
To:
Hon. C. William Foust
Circuit Court Judge
215 South Hamilton, Br 14, Rm 7109
Madison, WI 53703
Carlo Esqueda
Clerk of Circuit Court
Room 1000
215 South Hamilton
Madison, WI 53703
Shunette T. Campbell
5354 Congress Ave., #3
Madison, WI 53718-2253
Carlos A. Pabellon
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Room 419
210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703-3345
Joseph N. Ehmann
First Asst. State Public Defender
P.O. Box 7862
Madison, WI 53707-7862
Thomas F. W.
Mendota Mental Health Institute
301 Troy Drive
Madison, WI 53704-1521
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the matter of the mental commitment of Thomas F. W.: Dane County v. Thomas F. W. (L.C. # 2001ME263) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas F.W. appeals orders extending his mental health
commitment under Chapter 51 of the Wisconsin Statutes and authorizing continued
involuntary medication.[1] Attorney Shunette Campbell has filed a
no-merit report seeking to withdraw as appellate counsel. See
Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32 (2011-12)[2]; and State
ex rel. McCoy v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 137 Wis. 2d 90, 403 N.W.2d
449 (1987), aff'd, 486 U.S. 429 (1988). The no-merit report addresses the sufficiency
of the evidence to support the extension order and the order for involuntary
medication and treatment. Thomas was
sent a copy of the report, but has not filed a response. Upon reviewing the entire record, as well as
the no-merit report, we agree with counsel’s assessment that there are no
arguably meritorious appellate issues.
In petitioning for extension of a mental commitment
order, a county has the burden of showing that there is “a substantial
likelihood, based on the subject individual’s treatment record, that the
individual would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were
withdrawn.” Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(am). Following a final commitment order, the
circuit court has authority to determine whether an individual is competent to
refuse medication or treatment and, if the individual is not competent, the
court may order administration of medication, treatment, or both. Wis.
Stat. § 51.61(1)(g)3. and 3m. An individual is not competent to refuse
medication or treatment if, after the advantages and disadvantages of
medication and treatment have been explained, the individual “is substantially
incapable of applying an understanding of the advantages, disadvantages and
alternatives to his or her mental illness … in order to make an informed choice
as to whether to accept or refuse medication or treatment.” Wis.
Stat. § 51.61(1)(g)4.
The County presented testimony at the commitment
extension hearing from psychiatrist Dr. Matthew Felgus. Felgus examined Thomas at Mendota Mental
Health Institute, where Thomas was housed in the most restrictive unit, the Management
Treatment Unit. Felgus stated that he has
done prior examinations of Thomas. He
testified that Thomas has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and that
his mental illness impairs his judgment, causes paranoid thoughts, diminishes
his capacity to recognize reality, and causes him to act out aggressively
against staff and patients at Mendota.
Felgus opined that there was a substantial likelihood that Thomas would
become a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn. He further opined that Thomas is incapable of
understanding the advantages and disadvantages of medication because Thomas does
not acknowledge that he is mentally ill.
Felgus stated that the Management Treatment Unit is the least
restrictive environment for Thomas consistent with his needs.
Court-appointed psychologist Dr. Robert Barahal also
testified at the hearing by telephone.
Barahal stated that Thomas refused to meet with him, but that he
reviewed Thomas’s records and had a discussion with Mendota staff. Like Felgus, Barahal concluded that Thomas
suffers from schizoaffective disorder and is a proper subject for
treatment. Barahal also opined that,
based on Thomas’s history, it was likely Thomas would become more mentally ill
and aggressive in the absence of effective treatment. Barahal concluded that treatment in a locked
inpatient setting is the least restrictive environment for Thomas, considering
his history of aggressive behavior.
The County also presented testimony from Dr. Philip
Lomas, Thomas’s treating psychiatrist.
Lomas stated that, in addition to suffering from schizoaffective
disorder, Thomas is diagnosed as alcohol dependent and as having antisocial
personality disorder. Lomas opined that
Thomas is a proper subject for treatment, and that he has benefitted to some
extent from antipsychotic and psychiatric medications. Lomas stated that, when taken off medications
in the past, Thomas exhibited behavior that resulted in him being placed in the
exclusion room at the Management Treatment Unit. Lomas also stated that, when Thomas was off
medication, he did not eat or sleep normally, had increased delusional
thoughts, had poor hygiene, hoarded food under his bed, and refused to flush
the toilet in his room. Lomas stated
that it was his professional opinion that the Management Treatment Unit was the
least restrictive environment consistent with Thomas’s needs.
Thomas also testified on his own behalf, and stated
that he had been receiving treatment from Mendota since 1999, beginning with
outpatient therapy. When asked if he
believed that he was mentally ill, Thomas responded that he is a social drinker
and that he feels that his main problem is anxiety due to physical ailments. Thomas indicated that he would not take
antipsychotic medications if he were released from Mendota.
The circuit court could properly rely on the testimony
before it to conclude that the criteria for extending the commitment and
continuing involuntary medication and treatment had been satisfied. Upon our independent review of the record, we
have found no other arguable basis for reversing the orders. See State v. Allen, 2010 WI 89, ¶¶81-82,
328 Wis. 2d 1, 786 N.W.2d 124.
IT IS ORDERED that the orders are summarily affirmed
under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.21(1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Shunette Campbell is relieved of any further representation of Thomas F.W. in this matter. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(3).
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Court of Appeals
[1] Although the extension order which is the actual subject of this appeal has now expired, we will address its validity in case it might affect subsequent orders. A subsequent extension order was entered on April 11, 2012, and is the subject of an additional no-merit appeal, No. 2012AP2650-NM, pending with this court.
[2] All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version unless otherwise noted.