On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Michael F. Howard, 2001 WI App 137, 630 N.W.2d 244

Issue: Whether the remedy for a plea bargain breach should be to vacate the plea or to resentence on the plea.

Holding:

¶36 Our reading of Bangert and Smith leads us to conclude that the remedies and procedures outlined in Santobello are consistent with Wisconsin law. Specifically, the sentencing court has discretion to determine the appropriate remedy for a breach.

State v. Michael F. Howard, 2001 WI App 137

Issue/Holding: Failure to object to plea bargain breach waives the issue, leaving ineffective assistance of counsel the only mechanism for raising it. ¶21.

Also see, State v. Harold Merryfield, 229 Wis.2d 52, 598 N.W.2d 251 (Ct. App. 1999) (asserted plea bargain violation held waived, under State v. Smith, 153 Wis. 2d 739, 451 N.W.2d 794 (Ct.

State v. Brady T. Terrill, 2001 WI App 70, 242 Wis. 2d 415, 625 N.W.2d 353
For Terrill: Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue: Whether the trial court properly reconsidered a deferred-acceptance agreement (which would have allowed the defendant to avoid conviction upon successful completion of supervision), entering judgement of conviction after deeming the offense more serious than originally thought.

Holding:

¶24. If the State had asked the circuit court to enter judgment on the felony after viewing the videotape,

State v. John D. Williams, 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164, affirmed without discussing this issue, 2002 WI 1
For Williams: John A. Pray

Issue: Whether the defendant properly preserved objection to a prosecutorial breach of plea bargain.

Holding: ¶13:

(T)he trial court recognized it as an objection and initially agreed with Williams’s attorney. The objection was sufficient.

State v. Anthony A. Parker, 2001 WI App 111

Issue: Whether transfer to an out-of-state prison breached the plea bargain.

Holding:

¶7 … (I)n order to prevail on a claim of breach of a plea agreement, Parker cannot rely on whatever his ‘reasonable expectations’ might have been at sentencing. Instead, he must show the violation of a specific prosecutorial promise that induced his plea. See State v.

State v. Shomari L. Robinson, 2001 WI App 127, PFR filed 5/7/01
For Robinson: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue: Whether the plea bargain was breached when the defendant wasn’t allowed to present certain evidence at sentencing.

Holding:

¶16 … (T)he trial court did not clearly err in finding that the plea agreement called for argument by the parties, and at most, a very limited presentation of evidence at sentencing regarding the nature of the sexual assault.

State v. Garren G. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227, PFR filed
For Gribble: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether evidence of prior child abuse, both to the immediate victim and another child, was properly admitted in a trial on homicide of a child.

Holding: There was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the various prior acts.

State v. Joseph F. Rizzo, 2001 WI App 57, 241 Wis. 2d 241, 624 N.W.2d 824, reversed and remanded on other grounds, 2002 WI 20
For Rizzo: Franklyn M. Gimbel

Issue: Whether admission of other acts evidence was an erroneous exercise of discretion.

Holding:

¶5 … In a written decision, the trial court properly applied the Sullivan three-step analysis:

The acts which took place some years ago are remarkably similar to the allegations before the Court in this case …

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether a prior sexual assault of an adult was sufficiently similar to the charged sexual assault of a child to be admissible as other crimes evidence.
Holding:

¶14. The next step is whether the 1992 conviction was relevant; that is, whether under Wis. Stat. § 904.01, it relates to a fact or proposition that is of consequence to the determination of the action and if it has probative value.

State v. Terrance W. Walther, 2001 WI App 23, 240 Wis. 2d 619, 623 N.W.2d 205
For Walther: Raymond M. Dall’Osto, Kathryn A. Keppel

Issue: Whether the defendant’s motion for in camera inspection of the child sexual assault complainant’s confidential records should have been granted.

Holding:

¶11 Here, Walther established more than the mere possibility that the requested records ‘may be necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence.’