State v. B. R. B.

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
May 13, 2025
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2024AP106-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2023CF1873

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

B. R. B.,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
MILTON L. CHILDS, SR., Judge. Dismissed.

Before White, C.J., Donald, P.J., and Colón, J.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
No. 2024AP106-CR

¶1 PER CURIAM. Brooke1 appeals from an order of the circuit court
allowing the administration of involuntary medication to restore Brooke to
competency. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that this case is moot,
and we dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On April 28, 2023, the State charged Brooke with one count of
resisting an officer and one count of discharging a bodily fluid at a public safety
worker. As alleged in the criminal complaint, Brooke struggled with police
officers when they attempted to arrest her for trespassing at a local pharmacy, and
as officers placed Brooke in a squad car, Brooke spat at the officers.

¶3 Brooke’s competency was raised as an issue, and the circuit court
ordered a competency evaluation. Dr. Deborah Collins prepared a report dated
September 22, 2023, reaching the conclusion that Brooke was incompetent to
proceed with the charges but likely to regain competency with treatment.
Following a hearing on October 25, 2023, addressing the issue of Brooke’s
competency to proceed, the circuit court entered an order committing Brooke to
the Department of Health Services (DHS) for treatment to restore Brooke to
competency.

¶4 On January 15, 2024, DHS filed a motion requesting an involuntary
medication order and provided a report prepared by Dr. Colleen Considine in

1
For ease of reference and to protect the confidentiality of these proceedings, we adopt
the pseudonym used by the parties. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.86 (2023-24). All references to
the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

2
No. 2024AP106-CR

support of its motion. Following a hearing at which Dr. Considine testified, the
circuit court granted the order.

¶5 Brooke filed a notice of appeal on January 22, 2024, and this court
subsequently granted a stay of the circuit court’s order for involuntary medication
pending the appeal. Briefing for the appeal was completed on August 7, 2024.

¶6 CCAP records indicate that, less than a month later on September 4,
2024, the circuit court held a hearing revisiting the issue of Brooke’s competency,
and at that time, the circuit court found that Brooke was incompetent and not
likely to regain competency within the statutory timeframe to pursue the criminal
charges in this matter.2 Consequently, the underlying criminal case in this matter
was closed and ordered converted to a civil commitment proceeding under WIS.
STAT. ch. 51.

DISCUSSION

¶7 On appeal, Brooke challenges the order for involuntary medication
to restore her to competency and asks to have the order vacated. To that end, she
argues that the State failed to provide evidence sufficient to meet the Sell3 factors
and failed to provide evidence sufficient to overcome her right to refuse
medication.

2
CCAP is an acronym for Wisconsin’s Consolidated Court Automation Programs.
CCAP is an online website that contains information entered by court staff of which this court
may take judicial notice. See Kirk v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 2013 WI App 32, ¶5 n.1, 346
Wis. 2d 635, 829 N.W.2d 522.
3
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003).

3
No. 2024AP106-CR

¶8 Her primary arguments focus on the first Sell factor and special
circumstances that should have been considered by the circuit court under that
factor, and then the State’s inability to meet the other Sell factors based on the lack
of an individualized treatment plan. She additionally argues that the State failed to
meet its burden under WIS. STAT. § 971.14(3) to show that she was not competent
to refuse medication because of the lack of evidence that she was provided with an
explanation of the advantages and disadvantages and alternatives to the proposed
treatments. We decline to reach the merits of Brooke’s appeal because we
conclude that her appeal is moot.

¶9 Mootness is a question of law that we review independently. PRN
Assocs. LLC v. DOA, 2009 WI 53, ¶25, 317 Wis. 2d 656, 766 N.W.2d 559. “An
issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying
controversy.” Portage Cnty. v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, ¶11, 386 Wis. 2d 672, 927
N.W.2d 509 (citation omitted). Here, the underlying criminal case—and the
involuntary medication order—has been closed and the proceedings have been
converted to civil commitment proceedings. Her case is, therefore, moot because
she is no longer subject to the underlying order for involuntary medication to treat
her to competency on the now closed criminal charges. See Winnebago Cnty. v.
Christopher S., 2016 WI 1, ¶31, 366 Wis. 2d 1, 878 N.W.2d 109 (concluding that
“the issues are moot because he is no longer subject to the orders being
appealed”).

¶10 “Appellate courts generally decline to reach moot issues, and if all
issues on appeal are moot, the appeal should be dismissed.” J.W.K., 386 Wis. 2d
672, ¶12. We, therefore, decline to reach the merits of Brooke’s appeal and
dismiss Brooke’s appeal as moot.

4
No. 2024AP106-CR

¶11 We note that a moot appeal may be addressed in certain “exceptional
or compelling circumstances.” Id. (citation omitted). These established
exceptions where we may elect to address a moot issue include: (1) issues of great
public importance, (2) issues involving the constitutionality of a statute,
(3) situations that arise so often that a definitive decision is essential for guidance,
(4) issues that are likely to arise again and should be resolved to avoid uncertainty,
and (5) issues that are capable and likely of repetition but evade review. Id.

¶12 None of these exceptions apply here. Indeed, this court has recently
addressed issues nearly identical to the ones raised by Brooke in this appeal in our
recent decision in State v. J.D.B., 2024 WI App 61, 414 Wis. 2d 108, 13 N.W.3d
525, which we note is also now pending before our supreme court. Another
decision by this court would have no more impact than J.D.B., which renders
nearly all of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine inapplicable. The remaining
exception to mootness is the constitutionality of a statute, and because no one has
raised the constitutionality of a statute, this exception similarly does not apply to
defeat mootness. We, therefore, decline to reach the merits of Brooke’s case
under any of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

By the Court.—Appeal dismissed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

5