Corey J.G., In Interest of, No. 96-3148-FT
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Citation | 215 Wis.2d 395,572 N.W.2d 845 |
| Decision Date | 23 January 1998 |
| Parties | In the Interest of COREY J.G., a person Under the Age of 18. STATE of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Respondent, v. COREY J.G., Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Docket Number | No. 96-3148-FT |
Page 845
STATE of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
COREY J.G., Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner.
Decided Jan. 23, 1998.
Page 846
[215 Wis.2d 399] For the respondent-appellant-petitioner the cause was submitted on the brief (in the Supreme Court) by Eileen A. Hirsch, Assistant State Public Defender.
For the petitioner-respondent the cause was submitted on the brief (in the Court of Appeals) by Thomas L. Storm, District Attorney and pursuant to letter filed by William L. Gansner, Assistant Attorney General, petitioner-respondent will stand on the briefs filed in the Court of Appeals.
¶1 N. PATRICK CROOKS, Justice.
The Petitioner, Corey J.G. (Corey), seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's denial of Corey's motion to dismiss for failure to establish venue pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.185 (1993-94). 1
Page 847
¶2 On March 21, 1996, the State of Wisconsin (State) filed a petition in Fond du Lac County charging Corey, a juvenile, with delinquency, alleging one count each of criminal damage to property and battery. At the ensuing fact-finding hearing, 2 after the State [215 Wis.2d 400] presented its case, Corey brought a motion seeking dismissal of the proceeding, arguing the State had failed to establish venue. The circuit court judge, Reserve Judge John G. Buchen, denied the motion and concluded venue had been sufficiently established. The jury found that Corey had committed the acts alleged in both counts of the petition, and the circuit court judge entered a dispositional order placing Corey at Lincoln Hills School 3 for one year.
¶3 In affirming the circuit court's order, the court of appeals declined to address Corey's venue argument, concluding Corey had not raised the issue of venue with sufficient specificity to preserve it for appeal. The court of appeals determined that the circuit court's denial of the motion suggested that the circuit court interpreted the motion as challenging the proof that the offenses occurred in Clark County rather than venue in the context of a juvenile delinquency proceeding. The court of appeals further determined that Corey's failure to specifically refer to Wis. Stat. § 48.185, the statutory provision governing venue in juvenile delinquency proceedings, deprived the circuit court of an opportunity to review the issue and to receive proof of the issue from the State.
¶4 We conclude that Corey's motion was sufficient to preserve for appeal the issue of whether venue was established. We further conclude that the State [215 Wis.2d 401] failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Fond du Lac County was the proper venue for the juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant toWis. Stat. § 48.185. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals. 4
I.
¶5 The facts are undisputed for purposes of our review. On March 21, 1996, the State filed a Petition for Determination of Status of Corey in Fond du Lac County. In the petition the State alleged Corey was delinquent on two counts. The first count was that of criminal damage to property, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.01(1), allegedly occurring on August 22, 1995, at Sunburst Youth Homes, Inc. (Sunburst), in the City of Neillsville, Clark County, Wisconsin. The second count was that of battery, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.19(1), allegedly occurring on August 24, 1995, at Sunburst in the City of Neillsville, Clark County, Wisconsin. 5
[215 Wis.2d 402]
¶6 At the time of the alleged incidents, Corey was placed at Sunburst pursuant to a prior unrelated dispositional order entered in Fond du Lac County. The March 21, 1996, petition listed Corey's address as the City of Neillsville, Wisconsin. The petition listed Corey's parents' address as the City of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
Page 848
¶7 On April 1, 1996, Corey was transferred from Sunburst to St. Ives Residential Treatment Center located in Marathon County, Wisconsin. On April 22, 1996, a state public defender from Fond du Lac County was appointed to represent Corey on the criminal damage to property and battery charges filed against him in Fond du Lac County. The Order Appointing Counsel listed Corey's address as the City of Fond du Lac, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin.
¶8 While at St. Ives Center, Corey exhibited behavioral difficulties on numerous occasions. One such incident occurred on April 25, 1996, at which time Marathon County officials were called. On that same date, an Order for Transportation was entered providing that Corey be transferred from the Marathon County Sheriff's Department to the Fond du Lac County Juvenile Detention Center. The Temporary Physical Custody Request form used to initiate the transport of Corey indicated his address as that of St. Ives Center.
¶9 Corey remained at the Fond du Lac County Juvenile Detention Center until May 15, 1996, when, pursuant to a change of placement hearing in an unrelated matter, Corey was ordered to be placed at Lincoln Hills School in Irma, Wisconsin, for one year. Corey's transfer to Lincoln Hills was delayed until May 17, 1996, in light of the fact that he had a fact-finding hearing scheduled on May 16, 1996, for the criminal [215 Wis.2d 403] damage to property and battery charges arising from the incidents at Sunburst.
¶10 At the May 16, 1996, fact-finding hearing, the State called Jeff Crandall, a youth counselor at Sunburst, as a witness to the alleged criminal damage to property. Crandall testified that Corey was a student living at Sunburst and that at the time of the alleged incident, Corey had been at Sunburst for approximately thirteen months. Crandall further testified that on August 22, 1995, Corey was on the roof at the Friedle Unit of Sunburst throwing off shingles and ripping off vents and a wood support system.
¶11 With regard to the battery charge, the State called Scott Miller and Tess Ward as witnesses. Miller, a campus support specialist at Sunburst, testified that on August 24, 1995, while at Sunburst, Corey had an altercation with another juvenile resident which subsequently led to Corey's confrontation with a youth counselor, Tess Ward. Miller testified that after the juveniles were separated, Corey barricaded himself in a restroom. Miller further indicated that upon Ward's attempt to enter the restroom and restrain Corey, Corey "head butted" Ward. testified to a similar rendition of the facts, acknowledging that the incident occurred on August 24, 1995, at Sunburst in Neillsville.
¶12 At the close of the State's case, Corey brought a motion to dismiss the case for failure to establish venue. The court denied the motion, indicating venue had been established. In its entirety, the dialogue regarding Corey's motion developed as follows:
[215 Wis.2d 404] [DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, I think the first witness testified that it was at Sunburst Youth Homes, which is in Neillsville, which is in Clark County, State of Wisconsin. I think that is sufficient.
THE COURT: All the witnesses testified to being employed at that place in Neillsville. I'm satisfied that venue has been established. Motion is denied.
(R. 31 at 54.)
¶13 The jury determined that Corey had committed both of the acts alleged in the petition. A dispositional hearing was subsequently held on June 5, 1996, at which time the circuit court ordered that custody of Corey be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Services, and that Corey be placed at Lincoln Hills School in Irma, Wisconsin, for one year.
¶14 Corey appealed the circuit court's order, arguing the State had not established that Fond du Lac County was the proper venue for the juvenile delinquency proceeding. The court of appeals determined Corey's failure to specify that the venue motion was brought pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.185 deprived the circuit court of an opportunity to review the issue and receive proof of venue from the State. The court of appeals affirmed the order of the circuit court, concluding
Page 849
Corey's claim had been waived because it was not properly raised and preserved for appeal.¶15 Two issues arise from the dispute in this case. First, in his motion to the circuit court, did Corey sufficiently raise and preserve for appeal the argument that the State had not established venue? Second, if we determine the issue was properly preserved, did the State fail to establish that Fond du Lac County was the appropriate venue for the juvenile delinquency proceeding?
[215 Wis.2d 405] II.
¶16 We first decide whether Corey's motion regarding failure to establish venue was sufficiently raised to preserve the issue for appeal. This is a question of law, and we review such questions de novo. See First Nat'l Leasing Corp. v. Madison, 81 Wis.2d 205, 208, 260 N.W.2d 251 (1977).
¶17 An objection or motion is sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal if it apprises the court of the specific grounds upon which it is based. See Holmes v. State, 76 Wis.2d 259, 271, 251 N.W.2d 56 (1977). Specificity is required so that the circuit court judge and the opposing party are afforded "an opportunity to remedy any defect." State v. Barthels, 166 Wis.2d 876, 884, 480 N.W.2d 814 (Ct.App.1992), aff'd 174 Wis.2d 173, 184 n. 8, 495 N.W.2d 341 (1993). When the basis for the objection is obvious, however, "the specific ground of objection is not important." Champlain v. State, 53 Wis.2d 751, 758, 193 N.W.2d 868 (1972). "To be sufficiently specific, an objection must reasonably advise the court of the basis for the objection." State v. Peters, 166 Wis.2d 168, 174, 479 N.W.2d 198 (Ct.App.1991).
¶18 In his motion at the fact-finding hearing, Corey moved to dismiss the case, arguing venue had not been established. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Cramer v. Court of Appeals, No. 99-1089-OA.
...attempts to resolve any ambiguities in a manner that advances the legislature's purpose in enacting the statute. State v. Corey J.G., 215 Wis. 2d 395, 412, 572 N.W.2d 845 236 Wis.2d 482 ANALYSIS ¶ 19. We begin by noting that the issue, whether Cramer is a prisoner subject to the PLRA, in al......
-
State v. Counihan, No. 2017AP2265-CR
...of law that we review independently of the determinations rendered by the circuit court and court of appeals. See State v. Corey J.G., 215 Wis. 2d 395, 405, 572 N.W.2d 845 (1998) ; State v. Loomis, 2016 WI 68, ¶29, 371 Wis. 2d 235, 881 N.W.2d 749.III¶24 We begin by addressing whether Counih......
-
State v. Agnello, No. 96-3406-CR
...of the legal determinations rendered by the court of appeals and circuit court but benefiting from their analyses. In re Corey J.G., 215 Wis.2d 395, 405, 572 N.W.2d 845 ¶10 The necessity of lodging an adequate objection to preserve an issue for appeal cannot be overstated. We have written o......
-
State v. Hansen, No. 99-1128-CR.
...The goal of statutory interpretation is to discern the 243 Wis.2d 335 legislative intent underlying a statute. State v. Corey J.G., 215 Wis. 2d 395, 411, 572 N.W.2d 845 [3, 4] ¶ 10. As a general matter, § 961.45 provides a form of statutory double jeopardy protection that applies in the con......
-
State ex rel. Cramer v. Court of Appeals, No. 99-1089-OA.
...attempts to resolve any ambiguities in a manner that advances the legislature's purpose in enacting the statute. State v. Corey J.G., 215 Wis. 2d 395, 412, 572 N.W.2d 845 236 Wis.2d 482 ANALYSIS ¶ 19. We begin by noting that the issue, whether Cramer is a prisoner subject to the PLRA, in al......
-
State v. Counihan, No. 2017AP2265-CR
...of law that we review independently of the determinations rendered by the circuit court and court of appeals. See State v. Corey J.G., 215 Wis. 2d 395, 405, 572 N.W.2d 845 (1998) ; State v. Loomis, 2016 WI 68, ¶29, 371 Wis. 2d 235, 881 N.W.2d 749.III¶24 We begin by addressing whether Counih......
-
State v. Agnello, No. 96-3406-CR
...of the legal determinations rendered by the court of appeals and circuit court but benefiting from their analyses. In re Corey J.G., 215 Wis.2d 395, 405, 572 N.W.2d 845 ¶10 The necessity of lodging an adequate objection to preserve an issue for appeal cannot be overstated. We have written o......
-
State v. Hansen, No. 99-1128-CR.
...The goal of statutory interpretation is to discern the 243 Wis.2d 335 legislative intent underlying a statute. State v. Corey J.G., 215 Wis. 2d 395, 411, 572 N.W.2d 845 [3, 4] ¶ 10. As a general matter, § 961.45 provides a form of statutory double jeopardy protection that applies in the con......