On Point: 2. Waiver and reverse waiver

State v. J.A.V.,  2024AP2081, 4/23/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects two claims relating to the circuit court’s discretionary decision, including an argument that the circuit court relied on inaccurate information regarding the SJO program.

State v. J.C., 2024AP17, 7/30/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Jacob” appealed from an order granting the state’s waiver petition on charges of first-degree reckless injury, first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and possession of a dangerous weapon. The COA affirms.

State v. Jayden Adams, 2023AP218-CR, 7/23/24, District 1 (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25, voluntarily dismissed 3/5/25, case activity

Adams appealed a nonfinal order denying his motion for discovery prior to his Wis. Stat. § 970.032(1) preliminary examination and his motion for reverse waiver to juvenile court. Despite holding that juvenile defendants have a limited right to discovery before a prelim under State v. Klesser, 2010 WI 88, 328 Wis. 2d 42, 786 N.W.2d 144, the COA concludes that Adams was not entitled to the discovery he requested in this case. The COA also concludes that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the reverse waiver.

State v. M.P., 2024AP32, 6/26/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms circuit court’s order waiving M.P. into adult court based on M.P.’s age and seriousness of the offense.

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.

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. 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. 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.