On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA affirms juvenile’s placement at Copper Lake School, rejecting argument that placement was improper until State builds facilities contemplated when Lincoln Hills was closed.
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.
COA holds there’s nothing wrong with sending kids to a juvenile prison that, legally speaking, shouldn’t exist
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.
Bomb scare adjudication upheld, but restitution order reversed in part
State v. J.P., 2017AP1905, District 1, 9/5/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.P. was adjudicated delinquent for calling in two bomb scares to his high school. The court of appeals rejects his claims that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and unlawfully searched his phone and that his confession was involuntary. However, the court agrees with J.P. that part of the restitution order is invalid.
Does Wisconsin treat juveniles convicted of 1st degree homicide better than Tennessee?
There seems to be a debate over this issue. If you practice juvenile law, you might was to weigh in here at the Cyntonia Brown and the “51 to life” project. Attorney Robert Donohoo already has.
Court of appeals upholds $1,600 restitution award imposed on 14-year-old
State v. J.J.S., 2016AP1519, 4/25/17, District 3 (1-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity
The case appears to be an issue of first impression: Whether §938.34(5)(c), which provides that juveniles under 14 can’t be required to pay more than $250 in restitution, refers to the juvenile’s age when the State filed the delinquency petition or the juvenile’s age at the time of disposition. The court of appeals, choosing the time of disposition, upholds the $1,600 restitution award against J.J.S., even though he was just 13 when the filed its petition.
Delinquency — sanctions for violation of disposition order — exercise of discretion
State v. Mercedes S., 2012AP1524, District 2, 1/16/13
Court of appeals decision (1 judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Delinquency — sanctions for violation of disposition order — exercise of discretion
Imposition of additional period of secure detention upheld, against challenge that the court did not consider other options and, contrary to State v. Ogden, 199 Wis. 2d 566, 544 N.W.2d 574 (1996),
Delinquency – Secure Detention Order
State v. Justin J., No. 2010AP1796, District 3, 1/19/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Justin J.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Secure detention of 30 days was proper exercise of discreiton:
¶10 In this case, the factors the court considered and its statements show that the court used a “rational and explainable” process to determine the thirty days’ secure detention.
Juvenile Delinquency — Alternatives to Disposition
State v. Andrew J.K., 2006 WI App 126
For Andrew J.K.: George M. Tauscheck
Issue/Holding: Where a juvenile, in response to a State’s motion to lift a stay on corrections commitment, stipulated to placement in a local program, his subsequent termination from that program subjected him to a lifting of the stay notwithstanding that the program was not a statutorily authorized dispositional alternative:
¶18 Although the court approved the stipulation,