On Point: 21. Guilty pleas

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wells: Matthew Murray; case activity

Plea Bargaining – Judicial Participation 

Neither the trial court’s allusion to the disposition it would impose if Wells pleaded guilty (“I’ll probably go along with the recommendation,” but proceeding to trial “would be a whole different ballgame”) nor its own assessment of the representation advice it would have given (“I’d probably tell that client to take the deal … because you got [] big exposure”) amounted to prohibited judicial participation in the plea bargaining process:

¶10      We conclude that,

State v. Christina L. Contizano, 2011AP477-CR, District 4, 10/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Contizano: Robert C. Howard III; case activity

At Contizano’s sentencing for obstructing, based on lying to the police about her daughter’s location, the trial court didn’t erroneously exercise discretion in allowing Contizano’s ex-husband to advocate as a “victim” of the offense, in favor of a term of incarceration.

¶7        We conclude the court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it considered the Walworths’ statements at sentencing.  

on review of summary order (District 2); for Negrete: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

Plea Withdrawal – Collateral Attack – Deportation Consequences 

Issues (Composed by On Point):

1. Whether the laches doctrine bars Negrete’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, 18 years after he entered it.

2. Whether Negrete’s assertion that he didn’t know his plea exposed him to deportation entitles him to a hearing on his motion.

State v. Lee Roy Cain, 2010AP1599-CR, District 4, 8/11/11, affirmed, 2012 WI 68

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), affirmed, 2012 WI 68; case activity

If, during a (non-Alford) guilty plea colloquy, the defendant denies the existence of an element of the charged the offense, the court must refuse to accept the plea:

¶28      However,

State v. John D. Tiggs, Jr., 2010AP1530, District 2, 6/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

Tiggs knew that DNA test results would be released in mere hours, yet chose to enter his no-contest plea. His postconviction motion to withdraw the plea, based on a theory that the test results amount to newly discovered evidence, fails to satisfy the requirements that the evidence was discovered after conviction and that the defendant wasn’t negligent in seeking the evidence. 

on certification; for Soto: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post

Issues (composed by On Point):

Whether a defendant has a non-waivable right to be physically present at a §§ 971.04(1)(g) and 885.60.

If the right to physical presence at the plea proceeding can be waived or forfeited, whether a formal colloquy is nonetheless required before the defendant enters a plea via video conferencing.

State v. Yancy D. Freland, 2011 WI App 80 (recommended for publication); for Freland: Michael D. Zell; case activity

Conviction for an out-of-state sex offense comparable to a misdemeanor in Wisconsin will be treated as a misdemeanor for sex offender registration purposes, § 301.45(6).

¶12      Wisconsin Stat. § 301.45(1d)(am)1. specifically defines has been “[f]ound to have committed a sex offense by another jurisdiction” to include a person who has been convicted “for a violation of a law of another state that is comparable to a sex offense.”[7] Taken as a whole,

certification; for Soto: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity, circuit court affirmed 2012 WI 93

Plea Procedure – Personal Presence

We certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to determine whether Jon Soto’s statutory right to be physically present during a plea hearing was violated when the judge conducted the hearing through video teleconferencing and whether this issue was properly preserved.

Columbia County v. Fred A. Ederer, 2010AP2369, District 4, 5/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ederer: John Smerlinski; case activity

Ederer’s no contest plea waived his right to appeal suppression issue in this OWI-1st (therefore, civil) case. His reliance on County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 275-76, 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1995) (court should consider 4-factor test in determining whether to impose waiver bar) is misplaced:

¶5        Ederer acknowledges that Quelle was partially overruled on other grounds by Washburn County v.

State v. Eliseo Peralta, 2011 WI App 81(recommended for publication); for Peralta: Martin J. Pruhs; case activity

Conspiracy, § 939.31 – “Overt Act”

The “overt act” element of conspiracy, though it must go “beyond mere planning and agreement,” may be “virtually any act,” even if “insignificant,” ¶¶19-21. Thus, Peralta’s “communication to an undercover police detective that a large quantity of cocaine was ready for immediate delivery”