On Point: A. Plea agreements

State v. Donaven C. Sprague, 2022AP876-CR, 5/20/25, District III (not recommended for publication), case activity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. 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State v. Matthew Robert Mayotte, 2022AP1695, 1/23/24, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.

State v. Robert K. Nietzold, Sr., 2023 WI 22, 03/28/2023, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

Pursuant to the plea agreement, the state agreed to “not recommend a specific term of imprisonment.” At sentencing, the state argued for 27 years imprisonment, consisting of 12 years initial confinement and 15 years extended supervision. Nietzold objected, was denied a postconviction motion hearing in the circuit court, but the court of appeals reversed and ordered resentencing before a different judge. Now, a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court holds that the state “cured” its undisputed material and substantial breach because the prosecutor “acknowledged the blunder and modified the State’s recommendation to an undefined prison term-exactly what Nietzold agreed to.” (Opinion, ¶14).

State v. Jeremy Joseph Hamilton, 2022AP1350-CR, District 2, 03/01/2023, (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication) case activity

Some readers of this decision might find themselves wondering why there’s no equivalent to baseball’s “tie goes to the runner” rule in criminal appeals. Others might find themselves researching the rule of lenity. However, it turns out there is no such rule in baseball, and the rule of lenity only assists defendants as a canon of statutory construction where a “grievous ambiguity” exists. See State v. Guarnero, 2015 WI 72, ¶26, 363 Wis. 2d 857, 867 N.W.2d 400; see also State v. Williams, 2002 WI 1, ¶19, 249 Wis. 2d 492, 637 N.W.2d 733 (rejecting a “close case” rule which would favor criminal defendants in breach of plea claims). As the court of appeals puts it: “…this is a very, very close case…[but] even close cases have to be decided one way or another…” (Opinion, ¶14).

State v. Suzanne Lee Shegonee, 2022AP361-CR, District 4, 10/27/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is a guest post by Katie York, head of the SPD’s Appellate Division.

The circuit court sanctioned Shegonee $500 for accepting a new plea offer 3 days prior to her scheduled jury trial. The state made the offer after the court-imposed deadline for resolving the case. The court of appeals recognized the circuit court’s understandable concern about time pressures, number of cases, and the need for circuit courts to keep cases moving in a timely manner. However, it concluded the sanction imposed on Shegonee was “just outside the bounds of any authority for such a sanction” (¶¶1, 18) and thus reversed the sanction order.

State v. Jamie Lee Weigel, 2022 WI App 48; case activity (including briefs)

In Wisconsin criminal law, the word “sentence” is sometimes used generically to include probation; other times it’s used in a technical sense to refer only to imprisonment, and thus excludes probation. See, e.g., State v. Fearing, 2000 WI App 229, ¶6, 239 Wis. 2d 105, 619 N.W.2d 115. In this case the state attempts to defend its breach of a plea agreement by saying its agreement to cap its “sentence” recommendation referred to the technical meaning of “sentence,” and thus allowed it to also make a recommendation for consecutive probation. The court of appeals isn’t persuaded.

State v. Robert K. Nietzold, Sr., 2021AP21-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 4/13/22; case activity (including briefs and PFR)

Issue presented (composed by On Point based on the state’s PFR)

Was the state’s breach of its plea agreement with Nietzold remedied by the prosecutor’s withdrawal of the erroneous recommendation and restatement of the correct recommendation?

State v. Nietzold, 2021AP21-CR, 12/9/21, District 4 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/13/22; case activity (including briefs)

The State admits that it made a sentencing recommendation that breached the parties’ plea agreement. It claimed that the breach was not “material and substantial” because after the defendant objected it withdrew the recommendation. The court of appeals found the State’s breach to be “material and substantial” and the DA’s after-the-fact retraction of its comments and recommendation did not cure the breach.