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

Heading: The Circuit Court's Discretionary Decision

Text: ¶81 Here, the circuit court determined there was prosecutive merit, which Xander did not contest. The dispute therefore centers entirely on whether the circuit court permissibly exercised its discretion when it denied the State's petition to waive Xander into adult court. ¶82 The circuit court heard a full day's worth of testimony, and several hours of argument, before announcing its decision on waiver. Only two witnesses testified: Xander called Dr. Thompson, his expert, and the State presented a DYFS employee. Both testified in support of the juvenile court retaining jurisdiction. To reiterate, the circuit court's choice to deny waiver was based on testimony from two witnesses 6 No. 2021AP419.bh who testified against waiver and zero witnesses who recommended waiver. ¶83 The court began its decision with a high-level overview of the testimony and identified the correct legal standards: Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5), (6). It then worked through the criteria one by one and discussed the pertinent testimony for each. ¶84 The circuit court started by reading the first criterion under Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5)(a): The personality of the juvenile, including whether the juvenile has a mental illness or developmental disability, the juvenile's physical and mental maturity, and the juvenile's pattern of living, prior treatment history, and apparent potential for responding to future treatment. It then summarized the testimony and argument it had heard with respect to this factor over the course of two days. Specifically, it noted Dr. Thompson's diagnosis of Xander; that Xander's mental and physical maturity seemed consistent with his age; Xander's home life and his association with another individual allegedly present at the shooting and involved in his first juvenile adjudication; and Xander's past treatment history, noting that Xander was under supervision when the allegations at issue in the present petition surfaced. Finally, the court indicated that it received differing opinions on Xander's potential for responding to future treatment——a subject it also addressed at the end of its decision. In identifying the relevant and uncontested testimony pertinent to this criterion, the only reasonable 7 No. 2021AP419.bh reading of the transcript is that the circuit court did exactly as the statute requires: state its finding with respect to the criteria on the record. § 938.18(6). ¶85 The circuit court next looked to the second criterion: The prior record of the juvenile, including whether the court has previously waived its jurisdiction over the juvenile, whether the juvenile has been previously convicted following a waiver of the court's jurisdiction or has been previously found delinquent, whether such conviction or delinquency involved the infliction of serious bodily injury, the juvenile's motives and attitudes, and the juvenile's prior offenses. Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5)(am). The circuit court noted Xander's prior juvenile delinquency and that Xander had no prior adult convictions. It stated that the prior delinquency did not involve the infliction of serious bodily injury. Again, this cannot help but be understood as factual findings regarding Xander's prior record. ¶86 The third criterion requires consideration of the type and seriousness of the offense, including whether it was against persons or property and the extent to which it was committed in a violent, aggressive, premeditated or willful manner. Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5)(b). The circuit court unequivocally addressed this head on. It explained that there's no dispute that this was an incredibly dangerous, serious, series of events. These allegations are incredibly serious. The court largely adopted the district attorney's summation of the allegations made previously in the hearing, adding that some information, particularly regarding Xander's mental state, might be speculative. Notably, the circuit court 8 No. 2021AP419.bh acknowledged that these alleged events occurred in a public place where more people could have died or been injured——once more underscoring the serious nature of these offenses. Finally, the circuit court mentioned that both the State and the defense discussed the seemingly impulsive nature of the alleged crime. A review of the transcript thus reveals that the circuit court took care to incorporate the frightening details of the charges against Xander into its consideration; it did not ignore or minimize the seriousness of the allegations. ¶87 The circuit court then turned to the fourth criterion: The adequacy and suitability of facilities, services and procedures available for treatment of the juvenile and protection of the public within the juvenile justice system, and, where applicable, the mental health system and the suitability of the juvenile for placement in the serious juvenile offender program under s. 938.538 or the adult intensive sanctions program under s. 301.048. Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5)(c). When analyzing this criterion, the circuit court identified what evidence it had heard, and what it had not. The circuit court took note that because of Xander's age, he could be placed at Lincoln Hills, the juvenile correction facility, for only six to nine months. The court acknowledged the State's view that a six-to-nine month window was too short to address Xander's risk factors. But the circuit court did not adopt that view. Instead, it concluded that because there was no evidence in the record regarding how long Xander might need for treatment, it could not find that the time remaining was insufficient. The circuit court's approach is consistent with the legal requirement that it is the State's 9 No. 2021AP419.bh burden to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence. See § 939.18(4)(b), (6). The circuit court also acknowledged this was not Xander's first delinquency, but it explained that the juvenile system could address and work to change Xander's behavior and school attendance. All told, the circuit court made a series of factual findings regarding the fourth criterion based on the testimony it heard. ¶88 Finally, the circuit court addressed the fifth criterion: The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court if the juvenile was allegedly associated in the offense with persons who will be charged with a crime in the court of criminal jurisdiction. Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5)(d). The circuit court correctly stated this criterion was not applicable. ¶89 After finishing this review and identification of relevant evidence for each of the five criteria under Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5), the circuit court turned to the main question before it, supplementing its determination with additional references to the evidence it had heard. We quote this portion of its decision in full: But a major part of our focus is on this -- this nature of this offense and the time that we have left in the juvenile system. You know, I've said this before as well, this Court relies on – I'm not the one that gets to do the assessments. I'm not the one that gets to do the treatment plan. I'm not the one that gets to -- I'm not the expert. I'm not a psychologist. I rely on the experts in the fields to tell me what information is appropriate in order to both keep our youth safe and rehabilitate them and to some -- and to 10 No. 2021AP419.bh an extent keep the public safe, right? And they know that usually the State is the person saying that they represent the public and community safety but that's a part of my job too, as well. So that's what I rely on. I'm relying on the information provided by DYFS at least to give me some context on what was going on at the time of this offense. I'm considering the fact that when we talk about the adequacy of this system I have no information to opine or find that the juvenile system is inadequate to meet [Xander's] needs. I don't have information that -- I would -- I would have to accept the State's argument that jurisdiction until he is 18 is inadequate, but again I don't have information that supports that -- that assertion. I'd have to find that without any sort of expert testimony or psychologist saying, Hey, based on these treatment needs and this plan this is not going to work. I don't have that. We handle serious cases all the time in juvenile court. So the offense being serious, this offense, because this is an individual assessment, does not bar or indicate that this Court that this system would be inadequate on its face. I've been given a diagnosis with a treatment plan. That is not uncommon for treatment plans that we give other youth, in other cases, who are similarly situated. I don't have information that would lead me to find -- that could support a finding that this system is inadequate, particularly given that there are a number of treatment options and secure settings that have not been utilized. And aside from that, I know, that there -- based on the evidence based tool that we use to assess risk factors and protective factors. That there are factors within [Xander's] risk -- I should say or within his assessment -- that can be addressed. I have no information that would lead me to find that DYFS and the juvenile system as a whole cannot address these risk factors, cannot address the treatment needs that were identified, and cannot do those things while both keeping [Xander] safe and the public safe. Back to that standard that I mentioned before, the Court would be required to find that the State has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it is contrary to the best interests of the juvenile or of the public to hear the case. I don't find that it's 11 No. 2021AP419.bh contrary to [Xander's] best interests, based on the information that I just provided, regarding the risk factors, the potential treatment, and the services that are available to him in the juvenile justice system. I don't have information that would support a finding that the remainder of the time that this Court would have left is insufficient. I'm not finding that it would be in the public's -- that it would be contrary of the public's best interest either. We do have an ability to both keep the public safe and keep [Xander] in a structured setting, which I think it's apparent is what he needs, based on what I've heard from the prior -- how his supervision was going on his underlying case on his older pending case, while this was occurring. And for those reasons I am going to deny the State's petition for waiver. ¶90 To summarize the foregoing, the circuit court reiterated several of its key findings on the various criteria under Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5). The court expressed its reliance on the information provided by the two witnesses when considering if the juvenile system was adequate to address Xander's needs——emphasizing that the record did not support the State's assertion that jurisdiction until Xander is eighteen was inadequate. It noted that the juvenile court had the ability to handle serious cases. And the circuit court stated its conclusion that the juvenile system could address Xander's treatment needs while keeping the public and Xander safe. The circuit court then centered on the proper legal framework: the State had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that retaining jurisdiction in juvenile court is contrary to Xander's and the public's best interest. The State did not do so, the court held, once more citing the treatment and services available to Xander in the juvenile justice system, and its 12 No. 2021AP419.bh conclusion that the State had not proven this was contrary to the public's best interests. ¶91 The circuit court's decision in this case was reasonable and within its broad discretion. It identified the correct legal standard, Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5), (6), and noted the relevant facts with respect to each of the criteria under § 938.18(5). Then, the court rationally applied the facts to the law to reach its decision——explaining its conclusion that retaining jurisdiction was in the best interest of Xander and the public. Could the circuit court have more clearly articulated its factual findings and legal conclusions? Sure. However, when we review discretionary decisions, we do not require a perfectly polished transcript or magic words. Rather we look for reasons to sustain the trial court's discretionary decision, reversing if and only if the record does not reflect a reasonable basis for the determination or a statement of the relevant facts or reasons motivating the determination is not carefully delineated in the record. J.A.L., 162 Wis. 2d at 961. That simply is not the case here.2 The State also argues that the circuit court committed a 2 legal error by introducing and relying on inadmissible hearsay testimony from Dr. Thompson. The State forfeited this argument. The State never objected to the introduction of this testimony before the circuit court and in fact elicited this testimony from Dr. Thompson during cross-examination. It cannot now seek to invalidate the circuit court's decision on waiver based on testimony it elicited and did not object to. 13 No. 2021AP419.bh