On Point: 21. Guilty pleas

State v. Christopher Jones, 2009AP2761-CR, District 1, 9/28/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Jones: Jeremy C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The court rejects a claim of an “end-run” around the plea bargain, which limited the State’s recommendation to 10 years imprisonment while leaving the “configuration” of confinement and supervision to judicial discretion, based on prosecutorial comments:

• the “whole matter was “aggravated by the defendant’s record,”

State v. James Stoner, III, 2009AP2963, District 2, 9/22/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stoner: Joshua Davis Uller; BiC; Resp.; Reply

“Reopen-and-amend” plea bargains, “referring to those plea bargains where the State and defendant agree that a judgment of conviction, once announced, will be amended by the State upon the happening of some future event. 

2nd Circuit court of appeals decision

Federal Habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2254) – Filing Deadline – Brady Claim

The 2254 filing deadline is one year from the date the state-court conviction becomes “final,” subject to certain exceptions, including one which restarts the limitation period from “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence,” 28 U.S.C.

State v. Timothy Ray Anderson, 2009AP2416-CR, District 1, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Anderson: Jeremy C. Perri; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Anderson’s postconviction motion for plea withdrawal, on the ground he didn’t understand that a charge “dismissed outright” could nonetheless be considered at sentencing, was properly denied without hearing. The circuit expressly denied that the dismissed charge was factored into the sentence,

State v. Roger D. Godwin, No. 2009AP2999-CR, District 4, 8/5/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se

Recusal – Waiver

¶10      Godwin argues that Judge VanDeHey should have recused himself from the case because one of the judge’s colleagues, Judge Curry, and other courthouse staff were Godwin’s victims in the bomb threat case. The State argues that the judge was not required to recuse under WIS.

Alan Ward v. Deppisch, 7th Cir No. 08-2809, 07/23/2010

7th circuit decision, review of unpublished court of appeals decision

Habeas – Procedural Default

The state argues that Ward procedurally defaulted his claim because he failed to fairly present the Wisconsin courts with a federal issue, and the state courts ruled against Ward based on adequate and independent state law grounds. We disagree. A review of Ward’s postconviction motion before the state court shows that he fairly presented a federal issue.

State v. Kurt D. Neis, No. 2009AP1287-CR, District IV, 7/15/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Neis: Jacquelyn L. Wolter; BiC; Resp.; Supp. Resp.

Guilty Pleas – Collateral Consequence – Federal Gun Ban

Although Neis’s guilty plea to disorderly conduct, § 947.01, subjected him to the automatic federal firearm ban given the circuit court’s finding that the conduct related to domestic violence,

7th circuit court of appeals decision (en banc)

Second Amendment – Categorical Ban on Possession

Categorical legislative bans on gun possession are permissible under the second amendment, including those for convictions of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence per 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which the court now upholds.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago,

State v. Lyle A. Lay, No. 2010AP81-CR, District III, 7/13/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Lay: Timothy A, Provis; BiC; Resp.; Reply

An Alford plea may be one of “no contest” as well as “guilty”:

¶8      Lay is mistaken that an Alford plea cannot be entered within the context of pleading no contest.

State v. Travis Vondell Cross, 2010 WI 70, on bypass; for Cross: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply; Cross Supp.; AG Supp.

¶4 We hold that where a defendant is told that he faces a maximum possible sentence that is higher, but not substantially higher, than that authorized by law,