921 N.W.2d 219
Wis. Ct. App.2018Background
- In July 2015, 16-year-old Matthew Hinkle stole a car in Milwaukee, drove to Fond du Lac, led police on a high-speed chase, collided with vehicles, and was arrested after fleeing on foot. Delinquency petitions and waiver-into-adult-court petitions were filed in both Milwaukee and Fond du Lac counties; Fond du Lac also filed criminal traffic charges under Wis. Stat. § 938.17.
- On October 28, 2015, the Milwaukee juvenile court waived its jurisdiction under Wis. Stat. § 938.18 for prior offenses.
- On November 18–19, 2015, the Fond du Lac juvenile court concluded that, under Wis. Stat. § 938.183(1)(b) (the “once waived, always waived” provision), the Milwaukee waiver gave the Fond du Lac criminal court exclusive original jurisdiction over Hinkle for new nontraffic criminal charges.
- Hinkle pleaded (no contest/Alford pleas) to several counts in Fond du Lac after a plea agreement; some counts were dismissed but read in.
- Hinkle later moved to withdraw his pleas arguing (1) the Fond du Lac criminal court lacked jurisdiction over the nontraffic charges because the Milwaukee waiver could not supply jurisdiction in another county, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object. The circuit court denied relief.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed: it held § 938.183(1)(b) unambiguously gives criminal courts exclusive original jurisdiction when a juvenile court has previously waived jurisdiction, even if the prior waiver occurred in a different county.
Issues
| Issue | Hinkle's Argument | State / Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 938.183(1)(b) requires the prior waiver to have been by the same county court now considering jurisdiction | The definite article "the court assigned to exercise jurisdiction" means the same juvenile court must have previously waived jurisdiction (i.e., county-specific) | The statute refers only to the juvenile court that previously waived; a prior waiver in any county meets § 938.183(1)(b) and gives criminal courts exclusive original jurisdiction | Held for State: § 938.183(1)(b) unambiguous — prior waiver by any juvenile court suffices to vest exclusive original jurisdiction in criminal court ("once waived, always waived") |
| Whether the written Milwaukee waiver had to comply with § 938.18 formalities to validate § 938.183 operation in Fond du Lac | The written waiver was flawed/invalid (no evidentiary hearing; form language incorrect), so § 938.183 could not apply | If § 938.183 jurisdictional elements are met, no new § 938.18 waiver in the forum county is necessary; any defects in the § 938.18 order were harmless | Held for State: § 938.183 conferred jurisdiction despite the form flaws; any § 938.18 errors were nonprejudicial/harmless |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to Fond du Lac's jurisdiction | Counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudiced Hinkle’s decision to plead | Counsel correctly interpreted § 938.183; failing to challenge a correct ruling is not deficient and causes no prejudice | Held for State: counsel not ineffective under Strickland standard |
| Whether appellate forfeiture bars review because Hinkle didn’t object below or pleaded guilty | Hinkle contends plain error or ineffective assistance excuses forfeiture | Court exercised discretion to reach the uncomplicated statutory question despite possible forfeiture | Court considered and decided the jurisdictional question on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Buchanan, 346 Wis.2d 735 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- State v. Hemp, 359 Wis.2d 320 (apply plain language; avoid implausible results)
- State v. Hanson, 338 Wis.2d 243 (statutory terms read in context, ordinary meaning)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- State v. Nieves, 376 Wis.2d 300 (harmless error doctrine for nonprejudicial statutory defects)
- State v. Ziebart, 268 Wis.2d 468 (declining to fault counsel for not contesting a correct legal ruling)