|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED NOVEMBER
7, 1995 |
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, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound
volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-2100
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
IN THE
INTEREST OF
CLYDE
P., A PERSON
UNDER
THE AGE OF 18:
STATE
OF WISCONSIN,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
CLYDE
P.,
Respondent-Appellant.
APPEAL
from orders of the circuit court for St. Croix County: SCOTT R. NEEDHAM, Judge. Affirmed.
CANE,
P.J. Seventeen-year-old Clyde P.
(d.o.b. 1/30/78) appeals orders waiving juvenile court jurisdiction on charges
of attempted robbery, battery, fleeing a police officer, burglary and theft.[1] Clyde argues that the trial court erred by
making findings not supported by the evidence and by finding that the State had
met its burden of proof. This court
rejects his arguments and affirms the orders waiving juvenile court
jurisdiction over Clyde on these charges.
Clyde
stipulated to the prosecutive merit on each of these charges as alleged in the
juvenile waiver petitions. Essentially,
Clyde is charged with the beating and attempted theft of a wallet from a
fifty-seven-year-old man. Three other
younger juveniles were involved with Clyde in this incident that is alleged to
have occurred on February 15, 1995. On
March 24, 1995, a police officer observed Clyde driving a car. Learning that Clyde's license was suspended,
the officer attempted to stop Clyde and became involved in a police car chase
where Clyde's speed reached up to 100 miles per hour. Following the incident of fleeing the officer and operating a
motor vehicle after his license had been suspended, Clyde was placed in secure
detention and then released to his parents the following day.
Clyde
remained at home until June 22, 1995, when he was taken into secure custody
after being arrested for burglary and theft of a cash register from a campus
building at the University of Wisconsin—River Falls. This incident occurred while Clyde had pending in juvenile court
a waiver petition for the offenses of attempted robbery, aggravated battery and
fleeing an officer.
Clyde
argues that the trial court made three findings that are not supported by the
evidence and therefore erred in its exercise of discretion to waive juvenile court
jurisdiction. He contends the court
erroneously found that there were no appropriate services available in the
juvenile system; that the seriousness of the robbery and battery offenses was
enhanced by the victim's vulnerability; and that Clyde had a "stable"
home life.
After
reviewing the record of the waiver proceedings, this court is satisfied the
trial court did not predicate its decision to waive juvenile court
jurisdictions on an erroneous factor.
The court recognized that placements were available for Clyde at such
places as Lincoln Hills or Apogee, but concluded such placements were
inappropriate in light of Clyde's age, the seriousness of these charges and his
prior juvenile misconduct. This
conclusion is supported by testimony of Clyde's caseworker who was familiar
with the available placements and Clyde's juvenile history.
The
trial court also reviewed the circumstances of the beating and attempted
robbery on the person whom the juveniles believed had a large sum of money in
his wallet. Here, the trial court
referred to the victim as known in the area to be a subject of potential
harassment and recognized that the victim was vulnerable because of his
appearance and age. Although Clyde's
counsel called to the court's attention that there was no evidence to support
this conclusion, the court responded by indicating that there were sufficient
references in the juvenile waiver petition to the victim's lifestyle, to an
incident where the juveniles had approached the victim asking for cigarettes
and to the fact that the juveniles believed the victim had a lot of money from
winning a lottery. The trial court
could make such a reasonable inference of the victim's vulnerability from the
information provided at the waiver hearing.
The
trial court also reviewed Clyde's home life, and, although the term
"stable" may not accurately describe Clyde's home life, the court was
referring to the parenting skills of Clyde's mother. There is some evidence in the record to support this
conclusion. However, the record
demonstrates that the trial court was obviously aware of Clyde's dysfunctional
home life and need for family counseling when it exercised its discretion to
waive juvenile jurisdiction.
Finally,
Clyde contends the trial court erred by finding that the State had met its
burden of proof. In essence, he
contends the evidence is insufficient to support the waiver of juvenile court
jurisdiction. This court disagrees.
Clyde
acknowledges that the decision to waive jurisdiction is committed to the sound
discretion of the juvenile court. In
re D.H., 76 Wis.2d 286, 302-03, 251 N.W.2d 196, 205 (1977). The waiver decision must be based on the
criteria listed in §§ 48.18(5)(a) through (d), Stats., and a statement of the relevant facts and the reasons
motivating the court's granting or denying juvenile waiver must be carefully
delineated in the record. In re
C.W., 142 Wis.2d 763, 768-69, 419 N.W.2d 327, 329-30 (Ct. App. 1987); §
48.18(6), Stats.
Here,
the trial court recited §§ 48.18(5)(a) through (d), Stats., and made findings in favor of waiver with respect to
each of the criterion. It placed
significant emphasis on the fact that the attempted robbery was violent,
aggressive, premeditated and willful.
The court noted that the extreme seriousness of this offense justified
waiver, even if all other factors had suggested retention in the juvenile
court. It also recognized Clyde was
close to eighteen and a longer term of treatment was necessary. This court is satisfied that there was
sufficient evidence before the trial court for it to reasonably exercise its
discretion to waive juvenile court jurisdiction on these charges. The orders waiving juvenile court
jurisdiction are therefore affirmed.
By
the Court.—Orders affirmed.
This
opinion will not be published. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.