COA rejects venue-based challenge to juvenile waiver and affirms
State v. D.R., 2024AP2196 & 2198, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Drew” appeals orders waiving juvenile court jurisdiction, arguing that the circuit court erred when it rejected his claim that the criminal venue statute prevents the court from considering waive and in applying the standard. COA rejects both claims and affirms.
Drew, then 16, was already on a juvenile disposition with an out of home placement at Rawhide Youth Services when he and another juvenile stole a car in Waupaca County. (¶2). Drew drove the car into the glass doors of a closed gas station, the two then stole several THC/CBD related vapes and products and fled in the stolen car at high speed. (¶3). Following this incident, the state filed two delinquency petitions in Fond du Lac County for the burglary, property damage, and stolen vehicle. (¶5).
The state then filed waiver petitions in both cases. A report completed by the county department of human services and detailed Drew’s juvenile delinquency history was also filed. (¶6). Drew then filed a motion to dismiss the waiver petitions, challenging the circuit court’s authority to waive juvenile jurisdiction, because WIS. STAT. § 938.18(6) directs the court to “refer[] the matter to the district attorney” if the case is waived, and because WIS. STAT. § 971.19(1) mandates that crimes be prosecuted “in the county where the crime was committed[.]” (¶¶15-16). The circuit court disagreed and granted the waiver petitions. (¶17).
COA agrees with the circuit court, holding that the determination as to waiver was properly before the circuit court, and the question of proper venue of a subsequent criminal proceeding was not.(¶18).
Thus, the only issue before the COA is whether the waiver was proper. COA quotes WIS. STAT. § 938.18(5)(a)-(d) for the criteria the circuit court must consider in making its decision whether to waive jurisdiction and analyzes the circuit court’s discussion of each factor. (¶¶20-35). As a result, COA concludes that “[t]he court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.” It therefore holds that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion. (¶36).