Background
Terrance Grissom was charged in December 2018 with causing a bomb scare and making terroristic threats, both as a habitual criminal, based on contents of a letter he allegedly wrote while imprisoned. Grissom suffered from schizoaffective disorder and antisocial personality disorder with a documented history of psychiatric symptoms, particularly when noncompliant with antipsychotic medication.
Over the course of more than four years, the circuit court ordered multiple competency evaluations under Wisconsin Statute § 971.14. Evaluations produced conflicting opinions: some experts concluded Grissom was competent to proceed, while others concluded he was incompetent but likely restorable. By November 2023, the most recent evaluator (Dr. Steinert) opined that Grissom had been restored to competency. At a hearing on November 8, 2023, the prosecutor, Grissom, and his defense counsel all indicated they did not seek an evidentiary hearing, and the court found Grissom competent. Grissom subsequently entered a guilty plea to the bomb scare charge on December 7, 2023, after an extensive colloquy in which he represented that he understood the proceedings and was medication-compliant.
In March 2025, represented by new counsel, Grissom moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that his due process rights were violated because the court failed to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) and failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on competency, and that he did not enter his plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and rejected Grissom’s claims. The court held that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion under Wisconsin Statute § 972.11(1)—which states “No guardian ad litem need be appointed for a defendant in a criminal action”—in declining to appoint a GAL. The court emphasized that while GAL appointments in criminal cases are possible, they will be rare, particularly in competency proceedings where the legislature has created comprehensive statutory procedures under § 971.14.
The court determined that Wisconsin’s competency statute, § 971.14(4)(b), provides adequate due process protection by allowing the court to make a competency determination based on expert reports when the prosecutor, defendant, and defense counsel all waive the need for an evidentiary hearing. The fact that one evaluator (Dr. Benson) expressed an opinion contrary to the majority of evaluators did not require appointment of a GAL or mandate an evidentiary hearing when all three parties agreed to waive one. The circuit court properly exercised its discretion by relying on defense counsel’s advocacy, which the appellate court found to be excellent and sufficient to protect Grissom’s interests.
On the issue of whether Grissom entered his plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, the court found no clear error in the circuit court’s determination. The record showed that Grissom represented he was competent, was medication-compliant, engaged in an extensive colloquy with the court, reviewed the plea questionnaire and jury instructions with counsel, and demonstrated his understanding of the proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Wisconsin courts have discretion to refuse to appoint a guardian ad litem in criminal cases, and such appointments will be rare, especially in competency proceedings where statutory safeguards exist.
- When a prosecutor, defendant, and defense counsel all agree that no evidentiary hearing is needed on competency, § 971.14(4)(b) permits the court to make a competency determination based on expert reports and the court’s observations, even if expert opinions conflict.
- A defendant’s constitutional right to be tried only when competent is adequately protected by the procedures in Wisconsin’s competency statute and by competent defense counsel’s advocacy, without requiring appointment of a GAL.
- The validity of a guilty plea is assessed by whether the defendant entered it knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, as determined through judicial colloquy and the record before the court.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope of due process protections in Wisconsin criminal competency proceedings and establishes that the statutory framework of § 971.14 provides sufficient constitutional safeguards without requiring extraordinary measures like guardian ad litem appointments. The court rejected an expansion of GAL authority in criminal cases despite the defendant’s contentions that his mental illness and conflicting expert opinions necessitated such protection.
The ruling is significant for defense practitioners who must navigate the tension between representing a mentally ill client who asserts his own competency and the attorney’s professional and ethical obligations. The court affirmed that defense counsel can adequately advocate for a defendant’s interests within the existing statutory framework, even when the client and evaluators disagree on competency. Trial courts may rely on the procedures and safeguards built into § 971.14 rather than creating additional procedural requirements when a defendant challenges competency-based guilty plea withdrawals.