On Point blog, page 2 of 16
COA affirms denial of reverse waiver and motion for discovery prior to § 970.032(1) preliminary examination despite holding that juvenile defendants have a (limited) right to discovery
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.
COA reverses default in CHIPS appeal, concludes conduct was not egregious or in bad faith
State v. M.A.C., 2023AP1281 & 1282, 7/2/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA holds that the facts do not establish that “Molly’s” nonappearance at a status hearing in her CHIPS cases was egregious or in bad faith.
COA: Circuit court need not weigh all criteria equally when determining whether to waive juvenile into adult court.
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.
COA holds that parent forfeited jurisdictional challenge to CHIPS orders
Portage County v. D.A., 2023AP1237, 1255 & 1272, 5/9/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although “David” presents a superficially knotty jurisdictional argument, COA ultimately holds that he has forfeited this otherwise non-meritorious legal issue.
A trio of defense wins: Circuit court properly exercised discretion in ruling on motions for DPA in juvenile cases
State v. J.A.N., 2023AP1108, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
State v. Z.D.S., 2023AP1109, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
State v. S.R., 2023AP1110, 5/14/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a series of appeals seemingly aimed at the discretionary decisions of an individual circuit court judge, COA affirms the circuit court’s decision to dismiss and refer these juvenile prosecutions for a DPA under a well-settled standard of review.
Juvenile wins new hearing on whether stay of sex offender registration should be lifted; loses on judicial bias claim
State v. L.R.J., 2023AP1902, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Lincoln” succeeds on his claim related to sex offender registration due to the State’s concession but fails to rebut the presumption that the court acted impartially when revoking a stayed Serious Juvenile Offender (SJO) order.
COA opts for defense-friendly reading of Marsy’s Law in published juvenile defense win!
State v. M.L.J.N.L., 2021AP1437, 2/28/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
In one of our first published decisions to address the impact of Marsy’s Law, COA accepts the agreed-upon position of both parties that Marsy’s Law does not alter the framework for assessing requests for juvenile restitution under § 938.34(5)(a).
Defense Win! Court properly dismissed juvenile case with prejudice due to State’s blown deadline
State v. M.D.B., Jr., 2023AP620, 2/6/24, District I (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The State’s efforts to revive this delinquency case on appeal fail, as they are unable to persuade COA that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in dismissing the petition with prejudice for failure to comply with a statutory deadline.
COA rejects challenges to CHIPS permanency orders due to pro se litigants failure to adequately litigate appeal
Manitowoc County HSD v. K.R., 2022AP1975-78, 12/27/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Presented with a confusing pro se attack on permanency orders entered in these underlying CHIPS cases, COA affirms largely because it cannot ascertain the nature of the appellant’s challenge.
COA holds there’s nothing wrong with sending kids to a juvenile prison that, legally speaking, shouldn’t exist
State v. J.A.J., 2022AP2066, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a noteworthy juvenile appeal, COA rejects a novel argument highlighting the dysfunctional nature of our juvenile justice system as caused by the “closure” of Lincoln Hills.