935 N.W.2d 271
Wis.2019Background
- In July 2015 then-16-year-old Matthew Hinkle stole a car in Milwaukee, drove it to Fond du Lac, led police on a high‑speed chase, crashed, fled, and was arrested. The State filed delinquency petitions in Milwaukee and Fond du Lac and adult criminal complaints in Fond du Lac for certain vehicle offenses.
- The State sought waiver from juvenile to adult court in both counties. Milwaukee County held a waiver hearing and waived Hinkle into adult criminal court; Milwaukee then filed adult criminal charges that remained pending.
- Fond du Lac considered a separate waiver petition on a 14‑count delinquency petition. All parties and the circuit court treated Wis. Stat. § 938.183(1) as invoking the "once waived, always waived" rule based on Milwaukee’s prior waiver, and Fond du Lac moved Hinkle to adult court without a separate local waiver hearing.
- Hinkle pled guilty/Alford to several counts in Fond du Lac, was sentenced, then filed a postconviction motion seeking to withdraw his pleas and have the 14 counts returned to juvenile court, arguing § 938.183(1) is county‑specific (Milwaukee waiver should not bind Fond du Lac).
- The circuit court denied relief; the court of appeals affirmed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and affirmed, holding § 938.183(1) does not impose a county‑specific limitation and that any circuit court of criminal jurisdiction statewide has exclusive original adult jurisdiction over subsequently alleged offenses once a juvenile court has previously waived the juvenile and the prior criminal proceeding is pending or the juvenile was convicted.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hinkle's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wis. Stat. § 938.183(1)(b) limits the "once waived, always waived" rule to the county where the prior waiver occurred | § 938.183(1) contains no county qualifier; a prior waiver by a juvenile court (where proceedings remain pending or resulted in conviction) confers exclusive original adult jurisdiction on courts of criminal jurisdiction statewide | § 938.183(1) should be read county‑by‑county; Fond du Lac lacked competency because only a Fond du Lac juvenile court waiver could trigger adult jurisdiction in Fond du Lac | The statute is not county‑specific; once a juvenile court has waived and criminal proceedings are pending or resulted in conviction, any Wisconsin court of criminal jurisdiction has exclusive original adult jurisdiction ("once waived, always waived") |
| Whether Hinkle received ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue a county‑specific reading of § 938.183(1) | Failure to raise a nonmeritorious claim is not deficient performance | Counsel was ineffective for not arguing the county‑specific interpretation | Hinkle cannot show deficient performance because the county‑specific argument is nonmeritorious; no ineffective assistance proven |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (statutory‑interpretation principles and starting with plain text)
- City of Eau Claire v. Booth, 370 Wis. 2d 595, 882 N.W.2d 738 (2016) (distinction between subject‑matter jurisdiction and competency and reviewing competency independently)
- State v. Fitzgerald, 387 Wis. 2d 384, 929 N.W.2d 165 (2019) (courts will not read limitations into statutory text absent clear language)
- Dane County v. LIRC, 315 Wis. 2d 293, 759 N.W.2d 571 (2009) (do not read words into a statute that the legislature omitted)
- State v. Sulla, 369 Wis. 2d 225, 880 N.W.2d 659 (2016) (explaining read‑in charges and plea considerations)
- State v. Spanbauer, 108 Wis. 2d 548, 322 N.W.2d 511 (Ct. App. 1982) (recognizing circuit courts’ exclusive jurisdiction over criminal matters)
- Hefty v. Strickhouser, 312 Wis. 2d 530, 752 N.W.2d 820 (2008) (benchbook is not independent legal authority)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance standard)