Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Mootness — Delinquency — Expired Dispositional Order

State v. Stephen T., 2002 WI App 2
For Stephen T.: Raymond M. Dall’Osto

Issue: Whether appeal of a juvenile delinquency adjudication is rendered moot by expiration of its dispositional order.

Holding: No, at least in this instance: certain facets of the order (DNA sample; sex offender registration) survive, and appellate review will therefore have a practical effect. ¶11. (The court doesn’t say whether its mootness holding is limited to offenses that incur these particular consequences.) Moreover, the case presents an issue of great public importance likely to recur (namely, “whether a ten-year-old may be inferred to possess the same specific intent to become sexually aroused or gratified as an adolescent or adult”), an exception to the mootness doctrine. Id.

See also A.M. v. Butler, 7th Cir. No. 02-2882, 3/2/04 (federal habeas challenge to expired state court juvenile adjudication not moot, largely because adjudication could be used as aggravator, and therefore increase potential punishment).

 

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment