On Point: 21. Guilty pleas

State v. Jeremy Joseph Hamilton, 2022AP1350-CR, District 2, 03/01/2023, (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication) case activity

Some readers of this decision might find themselves wondering why there’s no equivalent to baseball’s “tie goes to the runner” rule in criminal appeals. Others might find themselves researching the rule of lenity. However, it turns out there is no such rule in baseball, and the rule of lenity only assists defendants as a canon of statutory construction where a “grievous ambiguity” exists. See State v. Guarnero, 2015 WI 72, ¶26, 363 Wis. 2d 857, 867 N.W.2d 400; see also State v. Williams, 2002 WI 1, ¶19, 249 Wis. 2d 492, 637 N.W.2d 733 (rejecting a “close case” rule which would favor criminal defendants in breach of plea claims). As the court of appeals puts it: “…this is a very, very close case…[but] even close cases have to be decided one way or another…” (Opinion, ¶14).

State v. Ahmed A.M. Al Bawi, 2021AP432-CR, District 3, 1/18/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Al Bawi’s trial attorney was not ineffective in advising him about the immigration consequences of his plea.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. renders deportable noncitizens who are convicted of aggravated felonies after they admitted to the U.S.. Under the I.N.A., “an offense relating to the obstruction of justice” where the term of imprisonment is at least one year qualifies as an aggravated felony whether it is committed in violation of state or federal law.  In Pugin v. Garland, Case No. 22-23,

State v. Damon D. Taylor, 2021AP272-CR, District 4, 12/30/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Taylor moved to withdraw his Alford pleas to three crimes. The court of appeals agrees his plea to one of the three crimes was not knowing and intelligent because the circuit court failed to ascertain that he understood the elements of the offense.

State v. Etter L. Hughes, 2021AP1834-CR, District 1, 11/1/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects Hughes’s claim that she should be allowed to withdraw her pleas to four counts of child abuse on the grounds that the state improperly amended the information to add more charges against her because there was no independent factual basis for those charges and because two of the counts were multiplicitous under § 948.03(5)(c).

State v. Suzanne Lee Shegonee, 2022AP361-CR, District 4, 10/27/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is a guest post by Katie York, head of the SPD’s Appellate Division.

The circuit court sanctioned Shegonee $500 for accepting a new plea offer 3 days prior to her scheduled jury trial. The state made the offer after the court-imposed deadline for resolving the case. The court of appeals recognized the circuit court’s understandable concern about time pressures, number of cases, and the need for circuit courts to keep cases moving in a timely manner. However, it concluded the sanction imposed on Shegonee was “just outside the bounds of any authority for such a sanction” (¶¶1, 18) and thus reversed the sanction order.

State v. Caroline J. Arndt, 2022AP450-CR, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Arndt pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct, but the circuit court’s plea colloquy was defective in two crucial ways, so on the merits—and because the state declined to file a brief in the court of appeals—she’s entitled to withdraw her plea.

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.

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?

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.