State v. Mariah E. (In re Interest of Mariah E.)

360 Wis.2d 492

864 N.W.2d 121 (Table)

In the interest of MARIAH E.:, a person under the age of 17.

State of Wisconsin, Petitioner–Respondent

v.Mariah E., Respondent–Appellant.

No. 2014AP1788.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Jan. 14, 2015.

Opinion

¶ 1 GUNDRUM, J.¹

Mariah E. appeals from the circuit court's nonfinal order waiving the juvenile court's jurisdiction in this case. She contends the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it waived her into adult court. We disagree and affirm.

Background

¶ 2 On June 17, 2014, the State filed a delinquency petition charging sixteen-year-old Mariah with two counts of battery of a peace officer, one count of battery to an emergency worker, three counts of resisting an officer, one count of obstructing an officer, and one count of disorderly conduct. The delinquency petition alleges the following.

¶ 3 Just before 2 a.m. on June 16, 2014, city of Kenosha police officers responded to a report of several girls fighting and yelling outside. Arriving at the address to which he was dispatched, Officer David Yandel discovered Mariah, who was upset, breathing heavily, and sweating, and appeared to be trying to hide under the porch. When Yandel, who was in full uniform, identified himself as a police officer, Mariah, who appeared to be intoxicated, responded with obscenities and resistance. Yandel informed Mariah that she was under arrest due to her apparent underage consumption of alcohol. When he attempted to take control of her left arm, she kicked him in his knee, struck him in the chest, and ran away. Yandel pursued Mariah, and she continued to resist arrest until Yandel finally subdued her with the help of another officer. Mariah continued her use of obscenities and significant physical resistance, including kicking her feet at Yandel. As a result of Mariah's resistance, Yandel experienced bleeding to two of his fingers and pain in his knee and back, and the second officer observed damage to his squad car.

¶ 4 The officers conveyed Mariah to the public safety building where she continued her physical resistance against three different police officers, to the point where they directed her to the ground to gain control. Once secured in a cell, Mariah continued to “kick the walls and bang herself against the wall.” Because of the suspected underage alcohol use, officers transported her to a hospital for medical clearance before continuing detention. At the hospital, Mariah remained uncooperative and directed obscenities toward the nursing staff. She became “combative, and kicked and swung her arms violently.” During this altercation, Mariah struck Yandel in his chest and chin and kicked a nurse in the shoulder, causing both individuals pain.

¶ 5 In addition to filing the delinquency petition, the State also filed a petition seeking waiver of Mariah into adult court. Mariah opposed the petition and the circuit court held a waiver hearing. At the hearing, the court found prosecutorial merit in the delinquency petition and then heard testimony on the issue of waiver from Mariah's mother and a county court services worker and a “Youth Competency Program” worker, both assigned to Mariah.

¶ 6 The court services worker testified for the State that she had supervised Mariah related to a prior finding of delinquency made just months earlier for theft and operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. The services worker testified that Mariah had been expelled from school due to her conduct related to the prior delinquency finding, that Mariah is “highly intelligent” and “more mature than other juveniles her age,” and that the services worker was not aware of Mariah having any mental illness or developmental disabilities. The services worker confirmed that during Mariah's juvenile supervision Mariah was supervised with electronic monitoring but had allowed the battery on the monitoring device to “die” an “excessive” number of times, thereby precluding the division from determining whether Mariah was compliant with home monitoring restrictions. The services worker also confirmed that there were times during the current period of supervision when Mariah's urine tested positive for illegal substances and that Mariah's drug and alcohol counseling was cancelled because Mariah missed too many appointments.

¶ 7 The services worker further testified that during Mariah's supervision stemming from her prior offenses, Mariah had participated in both the “Youth Competency Program” and the WAIT program. Regarding the Youth Competency Program, the worker stated that the program is “our most intensive community-based service for youth mentorship and direction.” Regarding the WAIT program, the worker explained that this program is “geared to look at cognitive thinking patterns, skill building, and education; and some of the areas that they focus on are social skills, anger management, alcohol and drug education, consequential thinking patterns, social skills, [and] peer relationships.” She testified that at the time Mariah committed the offenses underlying this petition, she had already successfully completed the ten-week-long WAIT program.

¶ 8 This witness also testified that Mariah had GPS monitoring and home monitoring detention, which are “more restrictive-type services,” and that she did not believe placement outside the home or in a correctional setting was suitable for Mariah. She pointed out that approximately three weeks before the June 16 incident, Mariah had been before the circuit court for consideration of sanctions related to her performance on supervision, and the court had lectured and counseled her but held sanctions in abeyance for two months. She further noted that Mariah was sixteen years and eight months old at the time of this hearing and confirmed that “if Mariah were to ... remain at home,” the services worker “would have approximately 16 months to work with” Mariah, but if Mariah “was placed out of home she could remain on juvenile supervision until she is 19 if still in school,” “[d]epending on the circumstances.”

¶ 9 Mariah called two witnesses. Mariah's mother testified that shortly before the June 16 incident, Mariah learned that her father would be released from prison and this caused Mariah to become “very upset.” The mother further testified that while on juvenile supervision, Mariah's attitude had improved and she had been making better decisions. Mariah also called as a witness the Youth Competency Program worker who worked with Mariah while she was on juvenile supervision. The program worker explained that Mariah was “doing very well” in the program, was hoping to get back into a high school, and had “stopped using marijuana.”

¶ 10 Following the hearing, the circuit court waived Mariah into adult court. Mariah filed a petition for leave to appeal the nonfinal waiver order. We granted the petition. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

Discussion

¶ 11 We will affirm a circuit court's decision to waive a juvenile into adult court unless the court erroneously exercised its discretion. State v. Tyler T., 2012 WI 52, ¶ 24, 341 Wis.2d 1, 814 N.W.2d 192. “A juvenile court erroneously exercises its discretion if it fails to carefully delineate the relevant facts or reasons motivating its decision or if it renders a decision not reasonably supported by the facts of record.” Id. On review, we look for reasons to uphold the court's waiver decision. Id.

¶ 12 In making the waiver determination, a circuit court considers, as relevant here, the personality and prior record of the juvenile, the type and seriousness of the offense committed, and the adequacy and suitability of facilities, services and procedures available in the juvenile system. Wis. Stat. § 938.18(5). The weight given to these factors is within the circuit court's discretion. G.B.K. v. State, 126 Wis.2d 253, 259, 376 N.W.2d 385 (Ct.App.1985). Ultimately, to waive a juvenile into adult court, the court must conclude that the evidence is clear and convincing that “it is contrary to the best interests of the juvenile or of the public” for the case to be heard in juvenile court. Sec. 938.18(6).

¶ 13 Mariah contends the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by “predetermin[ing]” the length of supervision she would receive if she remained in the juvenile system and comparing it “to a speculative maximum probation term that could be imposed in the adult court”; giving “significant weight” in its waiver decision to the amount of time available to supervise Mariah in the adult system as opposed to the juvenile system; and not considering “Mariah's personality and the seriousness of the offense [as] factors that point toward retaining juvenile jurisdiction.” The State asserts that the court properly exercised its discretion. We agree with the State.

¶ 14 Regarding her length of supervision contention, Mariah asserts that the circuit court improperly compared the amount of time during which she might have supervision if she remained in the juvenile system with the amount of time she might have supervision if she was waived into the adult system. Specifically, Mariah points out that following related testimony from the court services worker, the court stated that if Mariah remained in juvenile court, there would be only about a year and a half “to work with” her, while if she was waived into adult court, “she could potentially be placed on probation ... for well over four years.... It could even be up to five years.” Mariah acknowledges that at the time of the hearing she was subject to in-home placement, and if such placement was ultimately ordered by the court on the delinquency petition, the maximum amount of supervision time available in fact would have been about a year and a half, as indicated by the court. Similar to testimony from the court services worker, Mariah points out, however, that the possibility existed that the court might ultimately order her to be placed outside the home, and if...