On Point blog, page 29 of 44
Guilty Pleas – Procedure – Factual Basis – Consideration of “Whole” Record
State v. Lawrence Payette, 2008 WI App 106, PFR filed 6/30/08
For Payette: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue/Holding:
¶26 As our supreme court explained in White, “[i]n applying the manifest injustice test on review, this court may consider the whole record since the issue is no longer whether the guilty plea should have been accepted, but rather whether there was an [erroneous exercise] of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw.” Id.
Guilty Pleas – Factual Basis – Particular Instances: Using Computer to Facilitate Child Sex-Crime
State v. Eric T. Olson, 2008 WI App 171
For Olson: Byron C. Lichstein
Issue/Holding: The “act other than element” of § 948.075(3) isn’t satisfied by either transmission of live video of the shirtless defendant, or by his prior sexual encounters with others he met on-line:
¶11 Accordingly, we read the statute to require that, before the State may obtain a conviction under WIS. STAT.
Guilty Pleas – Procedure – Factual Basis, Generally
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶33 Wisconsin Stat. § 971.08(1)(b) provides that before a circuit court accepts a defendant’s guilty plea, it must “make such inquiry as satisfies it that the defendant in fact committed the crime charged.” This court has determined that establishing a sufficient factual basis requires a showing that “the conduct which the defendant admits constitutes the offense charged .
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – “Fair and Just Reason” Standard – Generally
State v. Barry M. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96, reversing 2006 WI App 28
For Jenkins: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶31 A “fair and just reason” has never been precisely defined. State v. Shimek, 230 Wis. 2d 730, 739, 601 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1999). Indeed, the fair and just reason standard “lack[s] any pretense of scientific exactness.”
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Understanding Nature of Charge – Intersection with Factual Basis
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Failure to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea triggers Bangert procedure, ¶¶56-59, citing State v. Monika Lackershire, 2007 WI 74. In this instance (because of a last-minute inclusion of a ptac theory the complaint didn’t assert any accomplice- or vicarious-liability facts;
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Understanding Nature of Charge – Colloquy, Generally
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: The defendant’s understanding of the charge must be detailed, in anon-perfunctory manner, on the record of the guilty plea:
¶52 The circuit court did not establish Howell’s understanding of the information it relayed to Howell by personally questioning him. Rather than asking Howell to summarize his understanding,
Guilty Pleas – Procedure – Read-In, Generally
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: ¶27 n. 7:
This court explained the procedure for read-in charges in Austin v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 727, 183 N.W.2d 56 (1971). When charges are read in during sentencing, the defendant admits to having committed the underlying crimes, but does not plead guilty to the charges,
Guilty Pleas – Procedure – Read-In, Existence of
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: In order to trigger read-in procedure there must be a sufficient showing of an agreement to read in the offense at issue:
¶28 Nowhere in the transcript of the plea hearing, the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the transcript of the adjourned sentencing hearing,
Plea-Withdrawal, Pre-Sentencing – “Fair and Just Reason” – Claim of Innocence: Insufficient, Alone
State v. Frederick W. Rushing, 2007 WI App 227, PFR filed 10/25/07
For Rushing: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: “A claim of innocence, of course, is not sufficient as a stand-alone reason to permit a plea withdrawal even before sentencing. State v. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26, ¶23, 289 Wis. 2d 222, 239, 710 N.W.2d 482, 490 (‘An assertion of innocence,
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – “Fair and Just” Reason: Claim of Unrealized Benefit from Efforts to Cooperate with Law Enforcement
State v. Barry M. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96, reversing 2006 WI App 28
For Jenkins: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether Jenkins’ claim that he (wrongly) thought he would be guaranteed an opportunity to work with law enforcement in return for potential sentencing benefit was a fair and just reason to allow pre-sentencing plea withdrawal.
Holding:
¶71 First,