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.
The delinquency petition alleged that Jacob was hanging out with friends when a group of “opps” (which the state explained means “a member of an opposing gang or group.”). (¶3). Jacob waived a gun at them and fired shots when they drove away, hitting the driver in the back of the head. (¶3). The driver lost control of the car and crashed, but survived. (¶3). In its waiver petition, the state argued that Jacob’s actions were “so reckless, dangerous and stupid” that he could not be allowed back into the community at the time that he would have to be released from custody in the juvenile system. (¶4). Jacob was to turn 18 in July 2024. (¶4).
The Department of Youth and Family Services’ waiver study recommended that Jacob be kept in the juvenile court system, and Jacob’s expert psychologist opined that his treatment needs could be addressed in the juvenile system. (¶5). Jacob’s human service worker (HSW), his mother, and his evaluating psychologist testified at the waiver hearing. (¶6).
During her testimony, the HSW “was made aware” that her recommendation could not be carried out, as Jacob’s offenses were not eligible for the serious juvenile offender (SJO) program, and that enrollment in the Milwaukee County Accountability Program (MCAP) was the “most significant penalty” available for Jacob’s case in the juvenile court system. (¶7). The psychologist testified about the services and supervision Jacob could have in the juvenile system. (¶8).
The circuit court found that the amount of time Jacob had left in the juvenile system was not a sufficient period of time for supervision, making the juvenile court system inadequate for Jacob’s case. The court therefore found that the state had met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that waiver was appropriate. (¶10).
Jacob argues on appeal that the juvenile court erroneously exercised its discretion because it mistakenly believed that waiver of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction was necessary because services would end upon Jacob’s 18th birthday. Waiver of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction is governed by Wis. Stat. § 938.18. “A juvenile court erroneously exercises its discretion if it fails to carefully delineate the relevant facts or reasons motivating its decision or if it renders a decision not reasonably supported by the facts of record.” State v. Tyler T., 2012 WI 52, ¶24, 341 Wis. 2d 1, 814 N.W.2d 192. Appellate courts “look for reasons to sustain the court’s decision.” Id. (¶13). To waive jurisdiction the juvenile court must consider five factors and must find that there is “clear and convincing evidence that it is contrary to the best interests of the juvenile or of the public to hear the case.” Wis. Stat. § 938.18(6).
The COA reasons that although there are orders available in the juvenile court system that could extend past a juvenile’s eighteenth birthday and that these orders could apply in Jacob’s case, such orders would not involve custody and were presented to the circuit court at the waiver hearing. Given the court’s comments, the COA concludes that the court rejected out-of-custody orders and rejected them, and ultimately considered its lack of ability to keep Jacob in custody inadequate in light of the nature of the allegations and the need to protect the public. (¶¶17-20).
The court also considers Jacob’s reliance on State v. M.C., No. 2021AP301, unpublished slip op. (WI App Aug. 11, 2021) and concludes that it is misplaced. Unlike M.C., here there is no dispute that the SJO program is inapplicable to Jacob’s case, and there is no way for the juvenile system to reach Jacob after his eighteenth birthday by way of the SJO program or other in-custody placement, as was the case in M.C. (¶24).
**ASPD Christopher August is a contributor to this blog. He did not participate in the posting or editing of this entry.
