912 N.W.2d 16
Wis.2018Background
- Shaun Sanders was charged in adult criminal court at age 19 for multiple sexual‑offense counts based on conduct that began when he was 8–9 and continued into later years; one count (count one) alleged repeated sexual assault for conduct occurring when he was under 10.
- At trial Sanders was acquitted of the count covering the under‑10 conduct but convicted on other counts; he had confessed to limited "peeks" when 8–9, which defense argued were not sexually gratifying conduct.
- Trial counsel moved to dismiss count one at the close of the State’s case on evidentiary grounds; the circuit court construed the argument as competency/jurisdictional and took it under advisement but never ruled; the jury acquitted on that count.
- Postconviction, Sanders argued ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to file a pretrial motion to dismiss count one on the basis that the circuit court lacked statutory competency to prosecute conduct committed before age ten.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court framed the issue as statutory competency (distinct from subject‑matter jurisdiction), reviewed prior Wisconsin precedent, and held age at charging—not age at offense—controls competency; thus any motion to dismiss would have been meritless and counsel was not ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had statutory competency to prosecute as an adult conduct committed before defendant's 10th birthday | Sanders: conduct committed <10 cannot be prosecuted as a criminal offense later; court lacked statutory competency for count one | State: competency depends on accused's age at time of charging; Sanders was adult when charged so criminal court competent | Court held competency is determined by age at charging; circuit court competent to proceed as criminal court |
| Whether failure to move to dismiss count one was ineffective assistance | Sanders: counsel should have moved pretrial to dismiss for lack of competency, and failure prejudiced him by admitting otherwise irrelevant confession evidence | State: counsel not ineffective because motion would have been meritless; failure to file meritless motion is not deficient | Held counsel did not perform deficiently; no need to reach prejudice prong |
| Whether statutory competency challenge is jurisdictional and always available | Sanders implied jurisdictional defect; trial counsel did not raise competency timely | State and Court: statutory competency (distinct from subject‑matter jurisdiction) can be forfeited | Held challenge is statutory competency (not subject‑matter jurisdiction) and may be forfeited; examined via ineffective assistance framework |
| Whether legislative intent requires a minimum age (10) for any later criminal liability | Sanders: policy/structure implies children under 10 should not later face criminal charges as adults | State: precedent and plain statutory text do not impose such a bar; legislature has not enacted a change despite prior cases | Held no statutory minimum preventing adult prosecution for conduct <10; prior case law and legislative inaction support rule that age at charging controls |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Annala, 168 Wis. 2d 453 (Wis. 1992) (age at time of charging, not age at offense, determines juvenile vs. adult competency)
- State ex rel. Koopman v. Waukesha Cty. Court, 38 Wis. 2d 492 (Wis. 1968) (criminal court competent where defendant was adult when charged despite offending as juvenile)
- D.V. v. State, 100 Wis. 2d 363 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981) (applies the age‑at‑charging rule to JIPS/juvenile distinctions)
- State v. Becker, 74 Wis. 2d 675 (Wis. 1976) (due process violation where prosecution deliberately delayed to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction)