On Point: 26. Juvenile proceedings

State v. Emanuel M., 2010AP2175, District 1, 3/15/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Emanuel M.: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The trial court made the requisite findings for SJOP disposition, § 938.34(4h): the juvenile was at least 14 years old; the adjudication offense(s) qualified under the statute; correctional placement was the only other appropriate disposition (as to which, the trial court’s multiple references to “Wales”

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Eric A.:  pro se; case activity

Expungement – Delinquency Adjudication, § 938.355(4m)(a)

Denial of petition for expungement of repeated sexual assault of child adjudication is affirmed.

¶8        Here, the court determined that the offense was too serious, and it would be against public policy, to permit expungement.  The court’s order stated society would be harmed by granting expungement. 

Honorable Mark J. McGinnis v. Mario Jimenez, 2010AP2208, District 3, 1/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jiminez: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Jiminez BiC; State Resp.; Reply

The circuit court lacks authority to sanction a 17-year-old for failure to comply with conditions imposed for violating a local truancy ordinance.

¶4        Wisconsin Stat.

State v. Michael S. L., 2010AP2352, District 2, 1/19/11

court of appeals decision; for Michael S.L.: Leonard D. Kachinski; case activity

Restitution order of 200 hours’ community service, on adjudication for disorderly conduct for “prank”  bomb threat to school, and based on school’s estimate of economic loss due to evacuating students and staff for the bomb scare, was within juvenile court’s authority. Although Michael S.L. did not admit to making the threats himself,

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court of appeals decision  (1-judge, not for publication); for Justin J.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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. 

State v. Tyler T., 2010AP784, District 2, 12/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication), affirmed, 2012 WI 52; for Tyler T.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The prosecution isn’t prevented from appearing at a waiver recommendation staffing by the local health and human services agency, notwithstanding absence of the juvenile or his attorney.

decision below: supervisory writ, not posted on-line

Issue (from Table of Cases):

Whether a circuit court, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 120.12(18) (school district has a duty to coordinate and provide continuity of educational programming for pupils receiving education services as the result of a court order under § 938.34(7d)) and § 938.45 (court may take certain actions if the district contributed to delinquency of minor) has the authority to craft an order which would override a school district’s prior determination to expel a juvenile under § 120.13(1)(c)1.

State v. Drew E. Bergwin, 2010 WI App 137; for Bergwin: Roberta A. Heckes; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Manipulation of Adult Jurisdiction over Juvenile Offense

When  the State brings a criminal charge against an adult defendant for an offense committed as a juvenile, the State must affirmatively show that the delay in charging wasn’t intended to manipualte the system to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction,

State v. Dionicia M., 2010 WI App 134; for Dionicia M.: Andrew Hinkel, SPD Madison Appellate

Recorded Confessions

The juvenile was in custody when she was directed to the locked back seat of a patrol car so that she could be transported back to school after being reported truant; and, because it was feasible under the circumstances to record her ensuing statement, failure to do so rendered it inadmissible.

State v. Carl Morgan, 2009AP74-CR, District III, 7/20/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Morgan: Ralph Sczygelski; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Sufficiency of Evidence Review

Review of a denied motion for dismissal at the close of the prosecutor’s case-in-chief is waived where the defendant proceeds to put in a defense. All the evidence, including the defense presentation,