On Point: 7. Disposition

State v. A.A.A., 2024AP2001, 3/12/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirmed the circuit court’s dispositional order placing juvenile in the Serious Juvenile Offender program at Copper Lake School, a Type I juvenile correctional facility for girls.  The Court rejected juvenile’s claim that such a placement was not permissible until the State builds a secure residential care center. 

State v. Q.D.R., 2024AP1067, 12/3/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a matter of first impression, COA rejects Q.D.R.’s statutory construction arguments and holds that funeral costs are recoverable under the juvenile restitution statute.

State v. L.R.J., 2023AP1902, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Lincoln” succeeds on his claim related to sex offender registration due to the State’s concession but fails to rebut the presumption that the court acted impartially when revoking a stayed Serious Juvenile Offender (SJO) order.

State v. M.L.J.N.L., 2021AP1437, 2/28/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In one of our first published decisions to address the impact of Marsy’s Law, COA accepts the agreed-upon position of both parties that Marsy’s Law does not alter the framework for assessing requests for juvenile restitution under § 938.34(5)(a). 

State v. J.A.J., 2022AP2066, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a noteworthy juvenile appeal, COA rejects a novel argument highlighting the dysfunctional nature of our juvenile justice system as caused by the “closure” of Lincoln Hills.

State v. B.S.S., 2021AP2174, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.S.S. was adjudicated delinquent for sexual assault. She anticipated filing a motion to stay the sex offender registration requirement, see § 938.34(15m)(c) and State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1, so she asked the court to provide funding for a defense expert to do a psychosexual evaluation to support the motion and to adjourn the dispositional hearing to get the evaluation done. In the course of denying her motions, the court made comments about the relevant legal standard for staying the requirement. (¶¶3-10). B.S.S. argues the court’s statements  show the court had prejudged, and thus was biased against, her request for a stay. The court of appeals rejects her claim.

State v. C.G., 2022 WI 60, 7/7/22, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2018AP2205; case activity

C.G. has the masculine legal name her parents gave her when she was born. When she was 15 years old she committed a sexual assault. At the time she was identifying as a male, but during and after the pendency of her juvenile case she began to transition to female. She wants to change her legal name to reflect her gender. But in Wisconsin, those on the registry are forbidden to change their names. C.G.–who is primarily identified by the pseudonym “Ella” in this confidential juvenile case–argued that forcing her to retain a masculine legal name violates her First Amendment right to free speech, and her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Four justices disagree.

State v. E.L.C., 2021AP1624, 4/5/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

In 2016, 13-year-old E.L.C. pled to 4th-degree sexual assault of his 7-year-old sister. The juvenile court deferred the issue of sex offender reporting until E.L.C. had a chance to participate in counseling. Five years later, it ordered him to register as a sex offender based on his conduct during supervision and his failure to fully engage with treatment. The court of appeals affirmed.

State v. T.A., 2020AP1350, 12/28/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Tanner (16) had sex with a girl (16) after she told him to “stop.” The circuit court adjudicated him delinquent and imposed but stayed a requirement that he register as a sex offender. Subsequently, the court lifted the stay and ordered Tanner to register as a sex offender for 15 years.  The court of appeals here reverses the “lift of stay” and orders a new hearing because the circuit court relied on an inaccurate interpretation of Tanner’s J-SOAP-II score at the original hearing.

State v. K.B.W., 2021AP47, District 1, 12/21/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

K.B.W. argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered him to register as a sex offender because it didn’t determine K.B.W.’s conduct was “sexually motivated,”  as required by § 938.34(15m)(am)1. Though the circuit court didn’t make an express finding on that point, the record shows the issue was addressed and that the circuit court therefore properly exercised its discretion.