On Point blog, page 1 of 44
Defense Win: COA orders resentencing before a different judge where State breached plea agreement and trial counsel did not advise defendant of all potential remedies.
State v. Donaven C. Sprague, 2022AP876-CR, 5/20/25, District III (not recommended for publication), case activity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.
COA reverses circuit court’s denial of state’s motion to revoke diversion agreement
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.
COA agrees with circuit court that while attorney may have made improper promises, defendant’s “unclean hands” prohibit plea withdrawal
State v. Terron Anthony Clayborn, 2023AP283-CR, 8/20/24, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity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.
COA issues published decision interpreting 971.365(1)(b) and rejects arguments for plea withdrawal
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.
Defense Win! Circuit court’s failure to “personally ascertain” factual basis for pleas entitles defendant to Bangert hearing
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.
D3 affirms denial of plea withdrawal claim under Cross’ “higher, but not substantially higher” rule
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.
COA holds that defendant’s misunderstanding about guilty plea waiver rule does not entitle him to plea withdrawal
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.
COA rejects constitutional challenge to legislature’s inclusion of non-impairing metabolite as restricted controlled substance
State v. Dustin J. VanderGalien, 2023AP890-CR, 12/29/23, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity
VanderGalien pled no contest to three counts stemming from a fatal motor vehicle crash after a non-impairing cocaine metabolite (benzoylecgonine or “BE”) was detected in his blood hours after the incident. The court of appeals rejects his facial challenge to the statute, Wis. Stat. § 340.01(50m)(c), which includes BE as a restricted controlled substance under the motor vehicle code. The court of appeals explains that “the inclusion of cocaine or any of its metabolites in the definition of a restricted controlled substance for purposes of prosecution under the Wisconsin motor vehicle code bears a rational relationship to the purpose or objective of the statutory scheme,” which is to combat drugged driving. Op., ¶30.
Parent entitled to an evidentiary hearing on claim that circuit court miscommunicated burden of proof in TPR plea colloquy
State v. B.M., 2023AP1137, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite an intervening decision from SCOW which generated skepticism as to whether parents can obtain plea withdrawal when a circuit court miscommunicates the burden of proof in a TPR plea colloquy, COA nevertheless reverses and remands in this case presenting yet another “A.G.” claim.
COA overlooks procedural bar, State’s failure to file to a response brief; affirms based on well-settled plea withdrawal case law
State v. William J. Buffo, 2022AP1803-4-CR, District IV, 7/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs available)
In another messy pro se appeal, COA overlooks the State’s failure to file a response brief and affirms the circuit court’s “evidently correct” decision.