On Point: 26. Juvenile proceedings

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); Resp. Br.

Delinquency
Failure to receive discovery until, but not prior to, plea hearing didn’t render latter a nullity; and, under § 938.01(1), the court must liberally construe the juvenile justice code: “Dakota has presented no reason, nor do we see any reason, why his best interest would be served by dismissing the petition with prejudice.”

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

Delinquency Petition – Time Limit
Time limit for filing petition continues running during gap between date intake worker requests petition and date request actually filed with DA’s office, therefore this petition  untimely; on remand trial court is to determine “proper remedy,” which may be dismissal, but not necessarily.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)

Delinquency – Venue
Delinquency venue is where the juvenile resides, § 938.185(1)(a), which is where the legal custodian establishes the child’s domicile; legal custodian of Jennifer Z. was Taylor Co. Human Services, therefore she resided in Taylor Co.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Eliciting Incriminating Testimony
Counsel’s eliciting incriminating testimony, without tactical reason, leading to added count was ineffective.

State v. Corey Kleser, 2009 WI App 43, PFR filed 4/9/09
For Kleser: Robin E. Dorman, SPD Milwaukee Trial; Debra Flynn-Parrino, Devon M. Lee, SPD, Milwaukee Juvenile

Issue/Holding:

¶46      Wisconsin Stat. § 970.032(2) makes no provision for the admission of hearsay at a reverse waiver hearing. Where a statute does not specifically authorize hearsay, it is generally prohibited, see Wis. Stat.

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,

State v. Michael S., 2005 WI 82, reversing unpublished decision
For Michael S.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶6 Reviewing courts generally decline to decide moot issues but may do so under certain circumstances. [3] A court may decide a moot issue when the issue is of great public importance; occurs frequently and a definitive decision is necessary to guide the circuit courts;

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85
For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial

Issue/Holding: The chief judge has authority to review denial of a substitution request in a delinquency proceeding, under §§ 938.29(1)(m) and 801.58(2). (Because § 801.58(2) is the more specific provision, it “applies when the juvenile’s request for substitution is denied,” ¶9; it plainly provides for “review[] by the chief judge of the judicial administrative district.”)

¶10.

State v. Stephen T., 2002 WI App 2
For Stephen T.: Raymond M. Dall’Osto

Issue: Whether appeal of a juvenile delinquency adjudication is rendered moot by expiration of its dispositional order.

Holding: No, at least in this instance: certain facets of the order (DNA sample; sex offender registration) survive, and appellate review will therefore have a practical effect. ¶11. (The court doesn’t say whether its mootness holding is limited to offenses that incur these particular consequences.) Moreover,