On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Defense Win: COA orders resentencing before a different judge where State breached plea agreement and trial counsel did not advise defendant of all potential remedies.
State v. Donaven C. Sprague, 2022AP876-CR, 5/20/25, District III (not recommended for publication), case activity
In the second defense win this week on appeal from a Barron County conviction (see Wooldridge), the COA vacated Donaven Sprague’s sentence to 10 years of initial confinement for repeated sexual assault of a child because the State breached its plea agreement to recommend no more than 5 years of initial confinement and did not cure the breach. The Court also found that Sprague received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not inform him that resentencing before a different judge was a remedy for the State’s breach. The Court remanded the case directing the circuit court to schedule a resentencing for Sprague before a different judge.
Defense win: State’s request for 25-year sentence breached agreement to ask for 20 years
State v. Jamie Lee Weigel, 2022 WI App 48; case activity (including briefs)
In Wisconsin criminal law, the word “sentence” is sometimes used generically to include probation; other times it’s used in a technical sense to refer only to imprisonment, and thus excludes probation. See, e.g., State v. Fearing, 2000 WI App 229, ¶6, 239 Wis. 2d 105, 619 N.W.2d 115. In this case the state attempts to defend its breach of a plea agreement by saying its agreement to cap its “sentence” recommendation referred to the technical meaning of “sentence,” and thus allowed it to also make a recommendation for consecutive probation. The court of appeals isn’t persuaded.
SCOW will address whether prosecutor cured plea agreement breach by restating correct sentencing recommendation
State v. Robert K. Nietzold, Sr., 2021AP21-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 4/13/22; case activity (including briefs and PFR)
Issue presented (composed by On Point based on the state’s PFR)
Was the state’s breach of its plea agreement with Nietzold remedied by the prosecutor’s withdrawal of the erroneous recommendation and restatement of the correct recommendation?
Defense win! DA materially and susbantially breached plea agreement
State v. Nietzold, 2021AP21-CR, 12/9/21, District 4 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/13/22; case activity (including briefs)
The State admits that it made a sentencing recommendation that breached the parties’ plea agreement. It claimed that the breach was not “material and substantial” because after the defendant objected it withdrew the recommendation. The court of appeals found the State’s breach to be “material and substantial” and the DA’s after-the-fact retraction of its comments and recommendation did not cure the breach.
Defense win: state breached plea by asking for more prison than it had agreed to
State v. Desmond Myers LaPean, 2019AP1448, 7/14/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
LaPean pleaded to a sexual assault of a child with an agreement that the state would cap its recommendation at 10 years of initial confinement and 10 of extended supervision. But at sentencing, the state first recommended 12 and 12. After defense counsel’s objection, the state instead requested 10 and 14. Counsel didn’t notice the second breach, but the prosecutor eventually did, telling the court the agreement was for 10 and 10. The court gave 12 and 10.