On Point: A. Plea agreements

State v. David W. Oakley, 2001 WI 103, 629 N.W.2d 308, reconsideration denied, 2001 WI 123, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Oakley: Timothy T. Kay

Issue: Whether a claim of plea bargain error was waived by a subsequent renegotiation of the plea bargain and entry of no contest plea on that new agreement.

Holding:

¶23  As this court has previously stated,

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

Issue: Whether the prosecutor breached a plea bargain calling for a maximum recommendation on multiple counts of concurrent terms of 25 years in prison, when the actual recommendation was for a total of 25 years but included consecutive terms.

Holding:

¶18 Undoubtedly, one of the most crucial issues in a plea agreement is the recommendation concerning length of time to be served on each count.

State v. Dalvell Richardson, 2001 WI App 152
For Richardson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the prosecutor breached a plea agreement “to leave the length of the incarceration entirely up to the Court, [without] any specific numerical type of recommendation” with allocution that clearly implied a request for a lengthy term.

Holding: The prosecutor’s comments (to the effect that this was one of the most serious cases the prosecutor had handled) didn’t breach an agreement to recommend incarceration without specifying length:

¶11.

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. Adrian L. Williams, 2000 WI 78, 236 Wis. 2d 293, 613 N.W.2d 132, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Williams: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether “this court [should] adopt a new rule of procedure, which would require that if a trial judge anticipates exceeding the state’s sentence recommendation under a plea agreement, the trial judge must inform the defendant of that fact and allow the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.”