Craig successfully completed this purge and did not serve any time in secure detention. A waiver hearing was subsequently held and the State's petition for waiver was granted. Craig now appeals the waiver, contending that because of the earlier imposition of sanctions by the juvenile court for the same offense, the waiver into adult court subjects him to double jeopardy. The question of whether an individual's double jeopardy protections have been violated is a question of law and we therefore owe no deference to the lower court's decision. The instant case deals with a claim that the third protection has been violated.
Double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecutions for the same offense.
There is no dispute in the instant case that Craig's actions which led to the charged crime of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance resulted in both a sanction by the juvenile court and the waiver into adult court. However, the pivotal and controlling question is whether the sanction imposed by the ch. If it is not, double jeopardy concerns are erased. We noted in B.S. that since the state was permitted to impose conditions with which the child must comply, it was also necessary for the state to have some means to enforce those conditions. We further stated that to find juvenile sanctions punitive would be inconsistent with the entire purpose of the Children's Code.