Opinion ID: 6496174
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Majority

Text: ¶92 The majority opinion takes a different tack. It oversteps its role as an appellate court and supplants the circuit court's discretionary decision-making authority with its own. It conducts what amounts to a de novo review, concluding waiver into adult court is required. See Majority op., ¶¶32-55. The majority analyzes the relevant criteria under Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5), not by referencing the circuit court's factual findings and legal conclusions, but by evaluating the record anew——effectively sitting in the place of the circuit court. This is wholly inappropriate in light of our scope of review in these cases. ¶93 The majority also argues that because the facts of this case are extreme, that lends credence to its conclusion that the circuit court acted in error. Majority op., ¶55. Yes, the facts of this case are extreme. Eight people suffered dangerous gunshot injuries resulting from the actions for which Xander was charged. But facts——extreme or not——do not change the legal standard that we are called to apply as an appellate court. The majority's reasoning seems to be that any juvenile committing a serious crime should be waived into adult court. This is contrary to legislature's policy choice reflected in the juvenile justice code; it is not what Wis. Stat. § 938.18 requires or allows. Here, the circuit court acknowledged the severity of Xander's actions, along with the other relevant criteria it must consider under Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5) and (6). Because this is precisely the type of discretionary decision 14 No. 2021AP419.bh entrusted to locally elected circuit court judges who hear these matters day-in and day-out, we cannot now reverse such a decision simply because we feel strongly that the court should have concluded otherwise. ¶94 Finally, the majority errs by declining to order a new waiver hearing upon the finding of error. Majority op., ¶¶3, 56. The State did not ask for such relief; it asked us to remand for a new waiver hearing. Additionally, as already explained, a decision to waive jurisdiction of a juvenile court requires a court to make factual findings and legal determinations under Wis. Stat. § 938.18. Appellate courts are not equipped or authorized in the ordinary course to make factual findings. Douglas L. v. Arika B., 2015 WI App 80, ¶18, 365 Wis. 2d 275, 872 N.W.2d 357. And we are ill-suited to make credibility determinations regarding the testimony the circuit court witnessed in its courtroom. Given the majority's conclusions, the better course would be to award the State the relief it asked for and remand for a new waiver hearing.