On Point blog, page 1 of 1
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State v. Matthew Robert Mayotte, 2022AP1695, 1/23/24, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.
SCOW: No special procedure required to establish factual basis for Alford plea
State v. Kevin L. Nash, 2020 WI 85, 11/19/20, affirming a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Before accepting a plea entered under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), a circuit court must determine whether there is “strong proof of guilt” sufficient to “substantially negate” the defendant’s claims of innocence. State v. Garcia, 192 Wis. 2d 845, 859-60, 532 N.W.2d 111 (1995); State ex rel. Warren v. Schwartz, 219 Wis. 2d 615, 645, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998). The supreme court declines to exercise its superintending authority to require circuit courts to employ a specific procedure to establish a sufficient factual basis for an Alford plea.
SCOW will clarify the “strong proof of guilt” requirement for an Alford plea
State v. Kevin L. Nash, 2018AP731-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 12/10/19, case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented:
When accepting a guilty plea under Alford v. North Carolina, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), a circuit court may find there is a factual basis for the plea only if there is “strong proof of guilt.” May a court find “strong proof of guilt” based only on the information contained in the criminal complaint, or must the court hear additional evidence before it can make that finding?
Factual findings doom ineffective assistance claims
State v. Henry J. Bloedorn, 2015AP953-CR, 4/6/2016, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Henry Bloedorn brought three ineffective assistance claims regarding the attorney who represented him during his plea and sentencing. That attorney’s unchallenged testimony at the Machner hearing convinced the circuit court, and now the court of appeals, that his performance gave no cause for complaint.
Alford Plea
State v. Lyle A. Lay, No. 2010AP81-CR, District III, 7/13/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Lay: Timothy A, Provis; BiC; Resp.; Reply
An Alford plea may be one of “no contest” as well as “guilty”:
¶8 Lay is mistaken that an Alford plea cannot be entered within the context of pleading no contest.
“Alford” Plea – Challenge to Trial Court’s Refusal to Accept
State v. William F. Williams, 2000 WI App 123, 237 Wis.2d 591, 614 N.W.2d 11
For Williams: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court’s express policy of never accepting an “Alford” plea worked an erroneous refusal to accept such a plea.
Holding:
¶8 Even if we were to determine that the trial court erred in rejecting the tendered Alford plea,
Guilty Pleas – Factual Basis – Alford Plea – Generally
State v. Anna Annina, 2006 WI App 202
For Annina: Robert R. Henak
Issue/Holding:
¶9 Annina seeks to withdraw her Alford plea on the grounds that a manifest injustice has occurred. “Withdrawal of a plea following sentencing is not allowed unless it is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” State v. Smith, 202 Wis. 2d 21, 25, 549 N.W.2d 232 (1996).