On Point blog, page 8 of 11
Guilty Pleas – Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor: Immediate Correction of Breach
State v. Richard L. Bowers, 2005 WI App 72
For Bowers: George Tauscheck
Issue/Holding: The State’s immediate correction of recommended disposition in excess of the plea bargain’s limit rendered the breach insubstantial and therefore not actionable; State v. Knox, 213 Wis. 2d 318, 321, 570 N.W.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1997), followed:
¶12. We reach the same conclusion here. While the State did not correct itself with tremendous enthusiasm and zeal and while the trial court did not reflect upon the State’s “earnest”
Plea Bargains — Breach: By Defendant – Failure to Appear at Sentencing – Renegotiation: Defendant’s Assent, not Knowledge of Specific Performance, Required
State v. Brad S. Miller, 2005 WI App 114
For Miller: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶8 In State v. Sprang, 2004 WI App 121, 274 Wis. 2d 784, 683 N.W.2d 522, we explained that when a prosecutor breaches a plea agreement by arguing for a harsher sentence than the one the prosecutor agreed to recommend and defense counsel fails to object,
Plea Bargains – Validity: Reopen and Amend to Less Serious Offense if Restitution Made Before Sentencing
State v. Peter R. Cash, 2004 WI App 63
For Cash: Lynn M. Bureta
Issue: Whether a plea agreement, which provided that if Cash returned stolen goods prior to sentencing the State would request that the judgment be reopened and amended from burglary to Class E felony theft, was invalid and the guilty plea therefore invalid as well, under the logic of State v. Hayes,
Plea Bargains — Validity: Remedy for Invalid Plea Bargain
State v. Anthony L. Dawson, 2004 WI App 173
For Dawson: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶25. In sum, the State has not presented us with a valid rationale for upholding the denial of Dawson’s plea withdrawal motion. Dawson has established that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was induced by the promise of a possible future benefit that could never be conferred.
Plea Bargains — Validity: Reopen and Amend to Less Serious Offense Upon Successful Completion of Probation
State v. Anthony L. Dawson, 2004 WI App 173
For Dawson: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a plea bargain under which the State agrees to subsequently reopen the case and amend it to a lesser charge is legally unenforceable and, thus, renders the plea unknowing and involuntary.
Holding: A reopen-and-amend provision in a plea agreement is unauthorized and unenforceable under State v.
Plea Agreements – Deferred Prosecution Agreement (§ 971.39) — Procedural Requirements
State v. Rex E. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20, PFR filed 1/8/04
For Wollenberg: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶14. Wollenberg cites State v. Jankowski, 173 Wis. 2d 522, 528, 496 N.W.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1992), to support his claim that he cannot be convicted on the basis of a legal nullity. Jankowski, however, dealt with a different scenario.
Plea Agreements – Deferred Entry of Judgment, Contrasted with Deferred Prosecution Agreement (§ 971.39)
State v. Rex E. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20, PFR filed 1/8/04
For Wollenberg: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether Wollenberg is entitled to withdraw his plea because the procedure for a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), § 971.39, wasn’t followed.
Holding:
¶6. Wollenberg presents no evidence, other than his own arguments, that there was a DPA under Wis. Stat.
Guilty Pleas – Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor – End-Run (“Negative Allocution”)
State v. Rudolph L. Jackson, 2004 WI App 132, PFR filed 6/15/04
For Jackson: Andrea Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether the prosecutor violated an agreement not to make a specific sentencing recommendation by expressing outrage at recommendations proffered on Jackson’s behalf and by urging the court to take into account the deterrent effect of its sentence.
Holding:
¶14. Jackson contends that the prosecutor breached the plea negotiation as his statements constituted an “end-run”
Plea Bargains — Remedy for Multiplicitous Counts — Felony-Murder
State v. Theodore J. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, PFR filed 1/21/03
For Krawczyk: John T. Wasielewski
Issue/Holding:
¶29. We conclude that Krawczyk’s plea to both felony murder and the underlying armed robbery, the latter conviction having been set aside, does not provide a basis for withdrawal of his plea to felony murder. First and foremost, the record is devoid of any evidence establishing that Krawczyk would not have pled guilty to felony murder (and to the other two offenses of which he remains convicted) had he known of the multiplicity of the felony murder and armed robbery charges.
Plea Agreements — Judicial Participation — Conclusive Presumption of Involuntariness
State v. Corey D. Williams, 2003 WI App 116
For Williams: Michael J. Edmonds
Issue/Holding:
¶1.… We conclude that judicial participation in the bargaining process that precedes a defendant’s plea raises a conclusive presumption that the plea was involuntary. Therefore, we adopt a bright-line rule barring any form of judicial participation in plea negotiations before a plea agreement has been reached. Because it is undisputed that the trial judge participated in the negotiations that led up to Williams’s pleas,