|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED August 6, 1996 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62(1), Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-1192
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
IN THE INTEREST OF
SAMUEL J.G.,
a person Under the Age
of 18:
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
SAMUEL J. G.,
Respondent-Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Oconto County:
LARRY L. JESKE, Judge. Affirmed.
MYSE, J. The State of Wisconsin
appeals an order denying its petition for waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction
over Samuel J.G.[1] The State contends that the circuit court
erroneously exercised its discretion by refusing to waive Samuel into adult
court. Because this court concludes
that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion, the order
is affirmed.
Samuel was charged with
nineteen counts of criminal damage to property for allegedly participating with
another juvenile in cutting the brake lines to nineteen school buses in the
Oconto Falls School District. Samuel
was also charged with one count of recklessly endangering another's safety
because a school bus driver drove one of the buses and discovered the severed
brake lines. The State requested waiver
of juvenile court jurisdiction, and the juvenile court worker recommended
granting the waiver petition based upon the seriousness of the offense and the
ability of the adult court to impose incarceration. The circuit court, however, denied the waiver petition concluding
that there was not clear and convincing evidence that Samuel should be waived
into adult court.
The decision whether to
waive juvenile jurisdiction is addressed to the sound discretion of the circuit
court. In re J.A.L., 162
Wis.2d 940, 960, 471 N.W.2d 493, 501 (1991).
The circuit court's decision must be based on the criteria listed in §
48.18(5), Stats., and the court
must set forth in the record specific findings with respect to the
criteria. In re C.D.M.,
125 Wis.2d 170, 176, 370 N.W.2d 287, 290 (Ct. App. 1985). The circuit court, however, has discretion
as to the weight it affords each of the criteria. In re B.B., 166 Wis.2d 202, 209-10, 479 N.W.2d 205,
207-08 (Ct. App. 1991). On review, this
court looks to whether the record reflects a reasonable basis for the circuit
court's determination. See In
re G.B.K., 126 Wis.2d 253, 259, 376 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Ct. App. 1985).
In this case, the court
examined the appropriate statutory criteria and discussed each of the factors
that were relevant. The State contends,
however, that the court erroneously exercised its discretion because it
improperly failed to consider the serious nature of the alleged offense. This court acknowledges that the conduct was
serious and could have involved the serious injury or death to untold numbers
of children. The circuit court also
found that the offense was extremely serious.
While the seriousness of the offense may be sufficient for the circuit
court to grant the waiver petition, the court is not obligated to grant the
petition based solely upon the serious nature of the conduct alleged. See J.A.L., 162 Wis.2d
at 960, 471 N.W.2d at 501. The circuit
court has discretion in determining which factors are entitled to the most
weight. Id. In this case, the circuit court felt that
Samuel's best interests and the public's need for protection could be met by
retaining juvenile court jurisdiction.
The circuit court could properly examine other relevant factors and
conclude that, notwithstanding the serious nature of the conduct, waiver of
juvenile jurisdiction was not warranted.
The State argues that
the circuit court did not adequately set forth the reasons for its exercise of
discretion. This court disagrees. The circuit court discussed each of the
relevant criteria under § 48.18(5), Stats.,
including the fact that there were adequate facilities available in the
juvenile court system for Samuel and that he was a suitable candidate for
counseling programs available through the juvenile court. The court further found that the public
could be adequately protected if Samuel was retained in the juvenile court
system. While the court did comment
that the adult court system may be better because of the court's power to
impose more severe penalties, that comment does not contradict the fact that
there are adequate facilities in the juvenile system for Samuel. The circuit court concluded that Samuel's
best interests and the ability to adequately protect the public while retaining
juvenile court jurisdiction were sufficient to deny the waiver petition.
Because the circuit
court properly considered all of the relevant factors and came to a reasonable
conclusion, this court concludes that the circuit court did not erroneously
exercise its discretion by denying the petition to waive Samuel into adult
court. While a reasonable judge could
have elected to waive juvenile court jurisdiction based upon the serious nature
of the offense alleged, such a result is not compelled. The circuit court, in its discretion, could
properly conclude that the factors consistent with retaining juvenile court
jurisdiction outweigh those in favor of waiver. Therefore, this court affirms the order.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.