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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Justin J.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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. The court noted the serious nature and timing of Justin’s offenses—both were violent incidents that occurred one after the other. The court observed Justin’s attack on the juvenile girl caused her to fear going to school and undergo reconstructive surgery. The court stated that although this was Justin’s first official delinquent adjudication, he had been previously referred to juvenile authorities and participated in a deferred prosecution agreement. Additionally, the court noted these offenses occurred while Justin was already receiving services through the Discoveries Program and commented these services were evidently not working. Finally, the court outlined his parents’ concerns with his behavior.
¶11 After making these observations, the court explained to Justin that in-home placement was not working and, as a result, the court was going to place Justin in shelter care so that he could be rehabilitated. The court also explained it was placing Justin in secure detention for thirty days to serve as a punishment for his actions. These statements demonstrate that the court adequately reasoned and explained why Justin needed to be placed in secure detention for a period of time. Although the court did not specifically address why it chose thirty days as opposed to a lower number, it was not required to give its reasons with that degree of specificity. See Richard J.D., 297 Wis. 2d 20, ¶12. Therefore, we conclude the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when pronouncing the disposition.
The court gets wrong the cite to Richard J.D., which is 297 Wis. 2d 30.
