Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-0656 In the Interest of Vairin M. v. Vairin M.

By: dmc-admin//July 15, 2002//

01-0656 In the Interest of Vairin M. v. Vairin M.

By: dmc-admin//July 15, 2002//

Listen to this article

“In this case, criminal proceedings were commenced before the motion for reconsideration was filed. The criminal court assumed exclusive jurisdiction, and the juvenile court lost jurisdiction to reconsider its waiver order. The juvenile court’s subsequent determination that it could not reconsider its waiver order was correct. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the circuit court (juvenile court).”

However, we further ruled that a juvenile seeking prompt review of a waiver order, after the criminal court has assumed jurisdiction, has two options.

“First, the juvenile may bring a timely interlocutory appeal under Wis. Stat. sec. 809.50 and may move the court of appeals or the criminal court to stay the criminal proceedings pending appeal.

“Second, if the juvenile has compelling new grounds bearing on waiver, he or she may file a motion with the criminal court asking the court to relinquish its jurisdiction by transferring the matter to juvenile court. As grounds for the motion, the juvenile must allege a new factor that:

(1) was not in existence at the time of the waiver decision or, if it was in existence, was unknowingly overlooked by all parties;

(2) is highly relevant to the criteria for waiver under Wis. Stat. sec. 938.18(5); and

(3) likely would have affected the juvenile court’s determination that it would be contrary to the best interests of the juvenile or of the public for the juvenile court to hear the case.

“After reviewing the motion, the criminal court may, in its discretion, conduct a hearing. If the court finds good cause, it may relinquish jurisdiction by transferring jurisdiction to the juvenile court. The juvenile may then file a motion for reconsideration with the juvenile court, which will have regained exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the motion.”

Dane County, Prosser, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Michael Yovovich, Janice Balistreri, Madison

For Respondent: Lana J. Mades, Joely Urdan, Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests