On Point: A. Plea agreements

State v. Lavonte M. Price, 2014AP1189-CR, District 1, 2/13/15 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs

This decision examines the line between a trial court’s active participation in the plea negotiation process, which Wisconsin law prohibits, and trial court’s comments, suggestions and lectures, which are permitted under Wisconsin law.  What the trial court did here was just fine, said the court of appeals.

State v. William F. Bokenyi, 2014 WI 61, 7/11/14, reversing an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity

In a decision that plows no new legal ground, a divided supreme court holds that a prosecutor’s remarks at sentencing did not breach the plea agreement, but were instead within the proper bounds of argument in support of a permitted recommendation for imprisonment. Because the prosecutor didn’t breach the plea agreement, the court doesn’t decide the primary issue presented for review: Whether the court should overrule State v. Sprang, 2004 WI App 121, ¶29, 274 Wis. 2d 784, 683 N.W.2d 522, which held that if defense counsel does not consult with the defendant when foregoing an objection to a breach of the plea agreement, counsel performs deficiently because that is “tantamount to entering a renegotiated plea agreement without [the defendant’s] knowledge or consent.”

Review of an unpublished, per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity; State’s petition for review

Issues (from the State’s petition):

State v. Carl A. Reed, 2013 WI App 132; case activity

Reed pled no contest to substantial battery in exchange for the State’s agreement to dismiss 3 other counts and to refrain from making a sentencing recommendation.  The State also received the right to withdraw from the agreement if  Reed “commits any new or additional crimes.”  Reed was later charged with new crimes.  So, the State presented a recommendation at sentencing.

United States. v. Anthony Davila, USSC No. 12-167, 6/13/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing United States v. Davila, 664 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)

Rule 11(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that parties may discuss and reach a plea agreement, but that the court “must not participate in these discussions.” In this case there is not dispute that a Magistrate Judge violated Rule 11(c)(1) by improperly participating in plea discussions by engaging in “repeated exhortations”

State v. Aaron L. Wood, 2013 WI App 88; case activity

The state did not breach the plea agreement where the prosecutor, after making the agreed-upon recommendation, expressed alarm and concern at what he discovered in the PSI after the plea agreement was made and referred in his sentencing argument to the negative portions of the PSI. State v. Williams, 2002 WI 1,

State v. London Mack Stewart, 2013 WI App 86; case activity

Stewart was convicted of reckless injury, reckless endangerment, and felon in possession after he shot at and injured a police officer executing a warrant at a home where Stewart was staying. (¶2). Under the plea agreement the state agreed to recommend a “global” 25-year sentence (15 in, 10 out); the state did so, but the injured officer,

State v. Lisa A. Brabazon, 2012AP1171-CR, District 4, 3/28/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Guilty plea — factual basis; value of stolen property

The victim’s statements as to the value of the stolen property (which were set forth in the complaint) provided a sufficient factual basis for concluding that the value exceeded the $5,000 threshold for felony theft:

¶19      ….

State v. Ronald W. Lichty, 2012 WI App 129(recommended for publication); case activity

Lichty pleaded no contest pursuant to plea bargain which allowed, due to a good-faith mistake, the State to recommend a period of extended supervision that exceeded the permissible maximum by one year. The error was discerned prior to sentencing, where the State reduced its extended supervision recommendation by one year. (His plea was to two counts of the same offense,

State v. Laurence W. Tucker, 2012 WI App 67 (recommended for publication); for Tucker: Robert T. Ruth; case activity

Tucker pleaded guilty pursuant to plea bargain, which terms included continuation of his release on bond and compliance with same. After Tucker failed to appear at sentencing, necessitating his arrest on a bench warrant and issuance of a new charge of bail jumping, the State informed counsel it was no longer bound by the agreement,