On Point: 26. Juvenile proceedings

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. B.S.S., 2021AP2174, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.S.S. was adjudicated delinquent for sexual assault. She anticipated filing a motion to stay the sex offender registration requirement, see § 938.34(15m)(c) and State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1, so she asked the court to provide funding for a defense expert to do a psychosexual evaluation to support the motion and to adjourn the dispositional hearing to get the evaluation done. In the course of denying her motions, the court made comments about the relevant legal standard for staying the requirement. (¶¶3-10). B.S.S. argues the court’s statements  show the court had prejudged, and thus was biased against, her request for a stay. The court of appeals rejects her claim.

State v. X.S., 2022 WI 49, 6/29/22, modifying and affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2021AP419, case activity (including, for some reason, one brief)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. C.G., 2022 WI 60, 7/7/22, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2018AP2205; case activity

C.G. has the masculine legal name her parents gave her when she was born. When she was 15 years old she committed a sexual assault. At the time she was identifying as a male, but during and after the pendency of her juvenile case she began to transition to female. She wants to change her legal name to reflect her gender. But in Wisconsin, those on the registry are forbidden to change their names. C.G.–who is primarily identified by the pseudonym “Ella” in this confidential juvenile case–argued that forcing her to retain a masculine legal name violates her First Amendment right to free speech, and her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Four justices disagree.

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.

Waukesha County v. E.B.V., 2021Ap1910, District 2, 4/20/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court granted the County’s motion to dismiss the truancy petition filed against E.B.V. because E.B.V. was no longer truant and, after initially contesting the facts of the petition, he entered into a consent decree. J.C.V., one of E.B.V.’s parents,  had also filed motions to dismiss the petition, alleging it was untimely,

State v. E.L.C., 2021AP1624, 4/5/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

In 2016, 13-year-old E.L.C. pled to 4th-degree sexual assault of his 7-year-old sister. The juvenile court deferred the issue of sex offender reporting until E.L.C. had a chance to participate in counseling. Five years later, it ordered him to register as a sex offender based on his conduct during supervision and his failure to fully engage with treatment. The court of appeals affirmed.

Portage County v. D.A., 2021AP1683, 2021AP1685, 2021AP1686, District 4, 3/24/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (for 21AP1683)

D.A. (“David”) raises various challenges to the finding his three children are in need of protection or services and to the dispositional orders. The court of appeals rejects his claims.

State v. T.A., 2020AP1350, 12/28/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Tanner (16) had sex with a girl (16) after she told him to “stop.” The circuit court adjudicated him delinquent and imposed but stayed a requirement that he register as a sex offender. Subsequently, the court lifted the stay and ordered Tanner to register as a sex offender for 15 years.  The court of appeals here reverses the “lift of stay” and orders a new hearing because the circuit court relied on an inaccurate interpretation of Tanner’s J-SOAP-II score at the original hearing.

State v. K.B.W., 2021AP47, District 1, 12/21/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

K.B.W. argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered him to register as a sex offender because it didn’t determine K.B.W.’s conduct was “sexually motivated,”  as required by § 938.34(15m)(am)1. Though the circuit court didn’t make an express finding on that point, the record shows the issue was addressed and that the circuit court therefore properly exercised its discretion.