On Point: B. Delinquency proceedings

State v. T.H., Jr., 2023AP285, 10/3/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another juvenile waiver appeal demonstrating the power of the discretionary standard of review, COA affirms the circuit court’s order despite the potential internal inconsistencies of that ruling.

State v. C.W.P., 2022AP1240 & 2022AP1317, District 2, 12/14/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (2022AP1240; 2022AP1317)

The state filed two juvenile delinquency petitions regarding C.W.P. and petitioned for waiver of juvenile jurisdiction in both cases. The circuit court held joint waiver hearings after which it granted waiver. The court of appeals rejects C.W.P.’s challenges to the circuit court’s decision.

Be sure to check out today’s Inside Track article “We Need to Recognize the Implicit Bias in Wisconsin’s Youth Justice System” by ASPD Alaina K. Fahley. Black and White youths engage in delinquent behaviors at similar rates. But while Black youth constitute only 11.2% of the Wisconsin youth population, they make up almost 25% of youth justice referrals. Ashley offers advice on addressing the disparity.

State v. X.B.A.-S., 2022AP944-946, 11/29/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

When a circuit court finds a juvenile not competent to proceed in a delinquency proceeding but likely to regain, may it “counsel and close” the related JIPS cases per §938.34(1)? Or must it enter dispositional orders requiring periodic reexaminations of the juvenile per §938.30(5)(e)? Siding with the State, the court of appeals chose the latter option.

State v. K.J.P.,  2022AP807, District 2, 11/2/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects K.J.P.’s arguments that the circuit court erred in deciding to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and allow him to be prosecuted in adult court.

State v. M.N., Jr., 2022AP855, District 1, 11/1/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court decided to waive M.N. (“Max”) into adult court based in part on the belief that any juvenile court supervision and services would end when M.N. turned 18 in 6 months. (¶8). But as the state concedes, juvenile court dispositions can extend beyond the juvenile’s 18th birthday. (¶16). The court of appeals holds that the circuit court’s erroneous belief was harmless.

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. X.S., 2022 WI 49, 6/29/22, modifying and affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2021AP419, case activity (including, for some reason, one brief)

Our supreme court is fond of extolling its role as a “law-developing court.” You’ll search in vain for any law development in this case. Rather than developing the law, the high court exercises its discretion to waive a juvenile into the adult system.

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. D.J.L., 2021AP436, 5/10/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity

The State charged 17-year-old “David” with exposing himself to two girls (5 and 9) and sexually assaulting the older one. On appeal, he challenged the circuit court’s decision to waive him into adult court. The court of appeals held that the circuit court (1) appropriately applied §938.18(5)’s waiver criteria, (2) had the discretion to reject an expert opinion opposing waiver, and (3) did not base its decision on the fact that D.J.L. would get a lighter sentence if he stayed in juvenile court.