On Point: B. Delinquency proceedings

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

Whether a juvenile “refused to respond or cooperate” during a portion of a custodial interrogation if it was going to be recorded, such that § 938.31(3)(c)1. allowed the interrogating officers to turn off the recording device.

Whether an error in failing to record a portion of the custodial interrogation requires exclusion of the statements that were recorded.

State v. Kadeem R., 2013AP2769, District 2, 4/2/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The juvenile court didn’t erroneously exercise its discretion under § 938.18 when it waived jurisdiction over a 16-year-old with no prior juvenile history for being an accomplice to an attempted nonviolent burglary. (¶¶2-5). There was no issue as to prosecutive merit, § 938.18(4), so the question was the application of the criteria under § 938.18(5).

State v. Cody Phillips, 2014 WI App 3; case activity

This case reached the court of appeals via a petition for leave to appeal a non-final order.

The State’s juvenile delinquency petition alleged that Phillips committed one count of 1st-dgree sexual assault of child by use or threat of force and a second count of 2nd-degree assault of a child.  At the State’s request, the juvenile court waived Phillips into adult court on both counts and ultimately pled no contest to two counts of 2nd-degree sexual assault of a child. 

Review of unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

Did the adult court lose jurisdiction or competency to proceed against a juvenile by failing to make a specific finding at the preliminary hearing that there was probable cause to believe the juvenile committed an offense that gave the adult court jurisdiction over the juvenile?

Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Toliver’s motion for “reverse”

State v. Niko C., 2013AP1393, District 1, 11/26/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying Niko’s request to stay the requirement that he register as a sex offender under State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1.

First, the court considered the relevant factors under §§ 301.45(1m)(e) and 938.34(15m)(c) and (16).

State v. Albert A., 2013AP549, District 3, 10/15/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Albert sought to stay juvenile sex offender registration under State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, ¶40, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1, but the circuit court denied the request. The court discounted a psychosexual evaluator’s opinion that Albert was low risk to reoffend because the judge believed the evaluator’s opinion reflected an actuarial assessment of group,

State v. Taylor M.S., 2013AP1337, District 2, 10/2/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; not eligible for publication); case activity

The juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in deciding to waive jurisdiction over Taylor’s charges, rejecting Taylor’s contention that the court failed to consider all of the factors in § 938.18(5), in particular the availability of treatment and services as required by § 938.18(5)(c):

¶6        We agree with the State that the circuit court sufficiently addressed the adequacy and availability of services.

State v. Jace H., 2012AP2479, District 2, 9/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The state petitioned to waive Jace H. into adult court in two delinquency cases involving allegations of sexual assault of two different victims. (¶¶2-4). After the circuit court granted the waiver petition, Jace’s new lawyer determined–and the state conceded–the allegations in one of the cases occurred before Jace turned 15, a fact that precludes waiver under § 938.18(1)(c) (juvenile court may waiver jurisdiction over juvenile alleged to have violated a criminal law on or after his 15th birthday).

State v. Darold M., 2012AP1020, District 1, 10/10/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Juvenile was not entitled to evidentiary hearing on his plea-withdrawal motion, which was premised on an unchecked box on the plea questionnaire signifying whether he understood the charges.

¶2        We conclude that Darold has not met his burden of showing that plea withdrawal is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice under the juvenile plea statute, 

State v. Noah L., 2012AP348, District 2, 8/29/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

After finding the proof sufficient to support a delinquency allegation, the trial court nonetheless declined to enter adjudication of delinquency, pending a report and recommendation from the Department of Human Services. The report was prepared, which included information not admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing, and the court adjudicated the juvenile delinquent.