COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

 

January 19, 2011

 

A. John Voelker

Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals

 

 

 

NOTICE

 

 

This opinion is subject to further editing.� If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.�

 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.� See Wis. Stat. � 808.10 and Rule 809.62.�

 

 

 

 

Appeal No.�

2010AP1796

Cir. Ct. No.� 2009JV41

STATE OF WISCONSIN���

IN COURT OF APPEALS

 

DISTRICT III

 

 

 

 

In the interest of Justin J., a person under the age of 17:

 

State of Wisconsin,

 

��������� Petitioner-Respondent,

 

���� v.

 

Justin J.,

 

��������� Respondent-Appellant.

 

 

 

����������� APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Marinette County:� DAVID G. MIRON, Judge.� Affirmed.�

�1������� HOOVER, P.J.[1]   Justin J. appeals a dispositional order and an order denying postdisposition relief.� Justin asserts the circuit court erred by ordering him to serve thirty days in secure detention.� Because we conclude the circuit court properly exercised its discretion, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

�2������� The State�s petition alleged Justin delinquent on two counts of disorderly conduct and two counts of misdemeanor battery. �The petition was based on two separate incidents.� In the first incident, Justin, while arguing with his father�s girlfriend, grabbed a screwdriver and made a stabbing motion towards her.� When she tried to take the screwdriver away, he pulled her hair, bit her, and kicked her. �The second incident occurred just weeks later, when Justin punched a girl after she pushed him away from her friend.� Once the girl was on the ground, Justin hit her five more times.� The girl suffered contusions and a broken nose.�

�3������� At a plea and dispositional hearing, Justin was adjudicated delinquent on two counts�the battery involving the girl and the disorderly conduct involving his father�s girlfriend.� The court dismissed and read in the disorderly conduct allegation involving the girl and dismissed outright the battery allegation involving his father�s girlfriend.�

�4������� The parties jointly recommended the circuit court follow the Marinette County Health and Human Services Department�s recommendation of one year supervision with no out‑of‑home placement.� The parties added an additional joint recommendation of thirty days� secure detention to be imposed and stayed to act as an incentive for Justin to behave.

�5������� The circuit court ordered Justin placed in shelter care for up to one year and ordered thirty days in secure detention with an additional thirty days imposed and stayed. �In making its determination, the court noted it was concerned with protecting the community, rehabilitation, and punishment.� The court characterized the attacks as violent and not isolated incidents and specifically mentioned how Justin�s attack had affected the girl.� The court considered Justin�s behavioral problems as outlined by his mother and father in the dispositional report as well as his prior contact with juvenile authorities.� The court also noted Justin had been receiving services through the Discoveries Program when these incidents occurred.� Finally, the court said:

Justin, this kind of behavior has to stop.� I don�t know what�s going on with you, but this has to stop.�

The whole point of this, although there is some punishment aspect of this, the balance of this is all rehabilitative.� Everything once you get to Crossroads is all simply rehabilitative to make sure that you change and this kind of stuff stops.� It should never, ever happen again.�

You need to learn the proper ways of controlling your anger and you cannot get involved in these kind of attacks on other people like you�ve been doing for the past, you know, who knows how long.

�6������� Justin filed a postdisposition motion regarding the thirty days in secure detention and the additional imposed and stayed time.� The circuit court modified its disposition in part, removing the thirty days that was imposed and stayed.� However, the court upheld the initial thirty days� secure detention.

DISCUSSION

�7������� On appeal, Justin argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered him to serve thirty days in secure detention, which is the maximum for a juvenile adjudicated delinquent.� Justin also asserts the circuit court failed to provide any reasoning for placement in secure detention.�

�8������� A circuit court�s dispositional order is reviewed for an erroneous exercise of discretion.� State v. Richard J.D., 2006 WI App 242, �5, 297 Wis. 2d 20, 724 N.W.2d 665.� In fashioning a disposition, the circuit court must consider �the seriousness of the offense, the need to protect citizens from juvenile crime, the need to prevent further delinquent acts, and the juvenile�s need for care and treatment.� �Id., �13.�

�9������� A circuit court is not required to specifically state the reasons for each component of a disposition.� Id., �12 (citing State v. Taylor, 2006 WI 22 �30, 289 Wis. 2d 34, 710 N.W.2d 466).� Rather, in determining a disposition, the court need only �put forth a �rational and explainable� chain of reasoning based on facts in the record.�� Richard J.D., 297 Wis. 2d 20, �12.

�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.

����������� By the Court.�Orders affirmed.

����������� This opinion will not be published.� See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.

 

 

 

 


[1]  This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. � 752.31(2).� All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.