On Point blog, page 2 of 2
State v. Patrick K. Tourville, Case Nos. 2014AP1248-CR thru 2014AP1251-CR, petition for review granted 9/9/15
Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; affirmed 2016 WI 17; case activity (for 2014AP1248-CR, which links to the other consolidated cases)
Issues (composed by On Point from the PFR)
Where the State agreed to cap its sentence recommendation on four cases at the “high end” of the recommendation of the presentence investigation (PSI) and the PSI did not recommend whether the sentences in the cases should be served concurrently or consecutively, did the State breach the plea agreement by recommending consecutive sentences?
Was there a sufficient factual basis for a plea to party to the crime of felony theft for “taking and carrying away” property when the defendant had no knowledge of the theft, but only received the stolen property and then moved it to a different location?
Prosecutor’s remarks didn’t imply that state was distancing itself from its sentencing recommendation
State v. Warren E. Schabow, 2014AP1254-CR, District 3, 7/7/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Based on the entire sentencing proceeding, the state didn’t breach the plea agreement because the prosecutor’s remarks did not insinuate the state was distancing itself from, or casting doubt on, its own sentencing recommendation.
Proceeding to sentencing despite misunderstanding about plea agreement defeats claims for plea withdrawal, resentencing
State v. Nelson Luis Fortes, 2015 WI App 25; case activity (including briefs)
A “misunderstanding” about what sentence the state could recommend under the plea agreement did not entitle Fortes to plea withdrawal or resentencing because after the misunderstanding became evident at the sentencing hearing, Fortes elected to proceed rather than seek an adjournment with a possible eye toward plea withdrawal.