On Point: 21. Guilty pleas

State of Wisconsin v. Gustin J. King, 2024AP2064-CRNM, 2/18/26, District II (recommended for publication) (per curiam); case activity

The COA, in the first published decision on the issue, holds that it does not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of conviction when one or more of the criminal counts is unresolved due to the existence of a deferred judgment agreement (DJA).

State v. Robert M. Christianson, 2024AP1884-CR, 2/12/26, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Christianson pleaded no contest to OWI 8th after the circuit court rejected his collateral challenges to 3 prior OWI convictions. On appeal, he renews his arguments that the three convictions are invalid because he did not have legal counsel, he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (“KIV”) waive his right to counsel, and the court handling the case failed to find that he was competent to proceed without counsel in each case. COA concludes that Christianson made a prima facie showing that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel in all three cases, but the state met its burden to show that he nonetheless validly waived his right to counsel in 2 of the 3 cases, and the circuit court properly found that he was competent to proceed without counsel.

State v. Charles Williams, 2024AP1424-CR, 12/2/25, District III (authored, not recommended for publication); case activity

Williams argues that the circuit court erred by denying his postconviction motion to withdraw his plea because he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right, under WIS. STAT. § 971.04(1)(g), to appear in person at the plea hearing. COA assumes without deciding that Williams did not waive his right to be present, but concludes that any error was harmless and affirms.

State v. Donaven C. Sprague, 2022AP876-CR, 5/20/25, District III (not recommended for publication), case activity

In the second defense win this week on appeal from a Barron County conviction (see Wooldridge), the COA vacated Donaven Sprague’s sentence to 10 years of initial confinement for repeated sexual assault of a child because the State breached its plea agreement to recommend no more than 5 years of initial confinement and did not cure the breach.  The Court also found that Sprague received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not inform him that resentencing before a different judge was a remedy for the State’s breach.  The Court remanded the case directing the circuit court to schedule a resentencing for Sprague before a different judge.

State v. Jonathon Wayne Allen Beenken, 2024AP419-CR, 1/24/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

COA holds that the clear and unambiguous terms of Beenken’s diversion agreement required the circuit court to grant the state’s motion to revoke the agreement.

State v. Terron Anthony Clayborn, 2023AP283-CR, 8/20/24, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In a case presenting a common postconviction fact pattern alleging an improper promise by counsel, COA affirms despite postconviction testimony largely corroborating the defendant’s account.

State v. Cordiaral F. West, 2022AP2196, 5/1/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

COA interprets a statute allowing aggregation of separate drug offenses into a single charge and holds that West is not entitled to plea withdrawal.

State v. Megan E. Zeien, 2023AP1787-CR, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

If you’ve ever wondered whether you have a Bangert claim concerning a circuit court’s failure to “ascertain personally whether a factual basis exists to support [your client’s] plea,” this unpublished but citable decision is worth a read. Unfortunately, the decision is a bit unclear about how exactly the state may seek to establish that Zeien’s pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary at an evidentiary hearing. See Op., ¶¶19, 22.

State v. Kasey Ann Gomolla, 2022AP199-CR, 2/6/24, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity

Even if the court of appeals had not recommended this decision for publication, Gomolla’s case seems destined for further review. While the facts here are somewhat distinguishable from State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64, Cross’ counter-intuitive holding, even with arguably “better” facts, seems to have hamstringed the court of appeals from acknowledging that a plea cannot be said to be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” if the defendant does not know the correct maximum penalty. If we had to guess, SCOW will soon be considering whether to reconsider, limit, or overrule Cross. 

State v. Matthew Robert Mayotte, 2022AP1695, 1/23/24, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Given the state of the postconviction record and COA’s narrow reading of precedent, Mayotte fails to establish he is entitled to plea withdrawal given his misunderstanding of the consequences of his Alford plea.