On Point: 21. Guilty pleas

State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶59      To earn a Bangert evidentiary hearing, a defendant must satisfy a second obligation. In addition to making a prima facie case that the circuit court erred in the plea colloquy, a defendant must allege he did not enter a knowing,

State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113
For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶11      “A defendant seeking to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest prior to sentencing must show that there is a ‘fair and just reason,’ for allowing him or her to withdraw the plea.” State v. Kivioja, 225 Wis. 2d 271, 283,

State v. Jeremy K. Morse, 2005 WI App 223
For Morse: Amelia L. Bizarro

Issue/Holding:

¶10      Here, the record reflects that Morse failed to demonstrate either a statutory or a Bangert violation. The plea hearing addressed all the appropriate issues and contains no statutory violations. The plea was extensive and complete. The fact that Morse now contends that he lied in answering the trial court’s questions during the plea colloquy cannot operate to create an unconstitutional plea.

State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113
For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Given that the record established Nelson’s ignorance of the potential for commitment as a sexually violent person (ch. 980) as a result of his guilty pleas, the trial court’s conclusion that he presented a “fair and just” reason for pre-sentencing plea withdrawal is sustained:

¶14      In determining whether the trial court properly determined that a fair and just reason was established,

State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113
For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether, after Nelson demonstrated a “fair and just” reason for pre-sentencing plea withdrawal, the State satisfied is concomitant burden of showing “substantial prejudice” in order to defeat the motion, where the principal complainant could no longer be found.

Holding:

¶17      We next turn to the question of whether the State met its burden of proof.

State v. Xavier J. Rockette, 2005 WI App 205
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Issue/Holding: Trial court’s error in refusing to order suppression of statement was harmless under § 971.31(10), under following circumstances:

¶27      We conclude that the result in this case would have been the same beyond a reasonable doubt even if the circuit court had granted Rockette’s suppression motion, given the overwhelming incentives Rockette had to plead rather than go to trial. 

State v. Jeremy K. Morse, 2005 WI App 223
For Morse: Amelia L. Bizarro

Issue: Whether Morse was entitled to plea-withdrawal on the basis of claimed newly discovered evidence, in the form of taped jail conversations between inmates discussing his case, and certain police reports.

Holding: The trial court’s findings that the tapes were inadmissible because not based on the declarants’ first-hand knowledge and were also vague and inconclusive,

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2005 WI App 265, reversed, 2007 WI 74
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Lackershire, an adult female convicted of sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, established a prima facie case for plea-withdrawal due to lack of adequate understanding of the elements.

Holding:

¶8        Initially, we note that in a plea withdrawal motion like Lackershire’s,

State v. Antoine T. Hunter, 2005 WI App 5
For Hunter: James R. Lucius

Issue: Whether the trial court’s observation to defendant, following denial of an assertedly “dispositive” suppression motion, that acquittal was “unlikely,” but that “coming forward and admitting your guilt” would provide “the opportunity to get some credit,” amounted to judicial participation in plea bargaining as banned by State v. Corey D. Williams,

State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113
For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether Nelson’s successful attempt to withdraw three of five bargain-based guilty pleas had the effect of abrogating the entire agreement so as to require withdrawal of the other two pleas.

Holding:

¶23      Finally, Nelson asserts that if he is successful in withdrawing some of his pleas,