On Point blog, page 9 of 11
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,
Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor – Pressuring PSI Agent to Change Favorable Recommendation Where State Had Agreed to Make No Recommendation
State v. Joshua L. Howland, 2003 WI App 104
For Howland: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶37. We conclude that the district attorney’s contacts with the Department of Probation and Parole, complaining about the PSI author’s sentence recommendation, when the plea agreement required the State to make no sentence recommendation, resulted in a material and substantial breach of the plea agreement. Consequently,
Guilty Pleas – Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor – Sentencing Recommendation by Police Officer Exceeding Bargained Length
State v. Leonard C. Matson, 2003 WI App 253
For Matson: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶13. Matson argues his due process rights were violated when Alstadt, the investigating detective in this case, gave a sentencing recommendation that undermined the State’s recommendation, in effect, breaching the plea agreement. The State counters that Alstadt was not a party to the plea agreement and thus his letter did not violate Matson’s due process rights.
Guilty Pleas – Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor — Remedy
State v. Leonard C. Matson, 2003 WI App 253
For Matson: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶33. Here, as he did before the circuit court, Matson seeks not to withdraw his plea, which is one remedy for a breach of a plea agreement. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 263 (1971). Matson instead seeks specific performance, a new sentencing by a different judge with a new presentence report.
Plea Bargains — Breach: By Defendant – Challenging Prior Enhancer-Conviction
State v. Robert C. Deilke, 2004 WI 104, reversing 2003 WI App 151, 266 Wis. 2d 274, 667 N.W.2d 867
For Deilke: Kelly J. McKnight
Issue: Whether a defendant’s successful challenge to a prior plea-bargain based conviction that is being used as an enhancer in a current proceeding amounts to a breach of that prior plea bargain so as to allow reinstatement of charges dismissed under it.
Plea Bargains — Breach: By Prosecutor — Negative Allocution
State v. John D. Williams, 2002 WI 1, affirming 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164
For Williams: John A. Pray
Issue/Holding:
¶46. We must examine the entire sentencing proceeding to evaluate the prosecutor’s remarks. Upon reviewing the State’s comments in the context of the sentencing hearing, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the State stepped over the fine line between relaying information to the circuit court on the one hand and undercutting the plea agreement on the other hand.
Plea Bargains — Breach: Procedural Issues — Burden of Proof and Standard of Review
State v. John D. Williams, 2002 WI 1, affirming 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164
For Williams: John A. Pray
Issue1: The terms of the plea agreement and the relevant state’s conduct are questions of fact, reviewed deferentially; whether that conduct amounts to a material and substantial breach is a question of law, reviewed independently. ¶4. The court clarifies, in the face of prior conflicting lower court opinions,
Plea Bargains — Remedy for Multiplicitous Counts
State v. Robert S. Robinson, 2002 WI 9, on certification
For Robinson: Leonard D. Kachinsky
Issue/Holding:
¶2. The question of law raised on appeal is what is the appropriate remedy when an accused is convicted on the basis of a negotiated plea agreement and the counts later are determined to be multiplicitous, violating the accused’s state and federal constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy? ….
¶3.
Plea Bargains — Breach: Procedural Issues — Objection, Sustained
State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky
Issue/Holding:
¶27 … Here, Grindemann did object to the prosecutor’s mention of uncharged offenses at sentencing, but the objection was based on the lack of evidence ‘properly before the court,’ not on any claim that the State was violating either the terms or the ‘spirit’ of the plea agreement.
Plea Bargains – Breach: By Defendant
State v. Scott G. Zuniga, 2002 WI App 233, PFR filed 9/13/02
For Zuniga: Chad G. Kerkman
Issue/Holding: Because the defendant was warned by the judge at a bond-release hearing that if he engaged in misconduct the state would seek a longer sentence, “the parties effectively modified the plea agreement by making the State’s obligation conditional upon Zuniga’s good behavior while in the community. In proceeding under these circumstances,