On Point blog, page 36 of 44
Plea Bargains — Validity: Remedy for Invalid Plea Bargain
State v. Anthony L. Dawson, 2004 WI App 173
For Dawson: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶25. In sum, the State has not presented us with a valid rationale for upholding the denial of Dawson’s plea withdrawal motion. Dawson has established that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was induced by the promise of a possible future benefit that could never be conferred.
Plea Bargains — Validity: Reopen and Amend to Less Serious Offense Upon Successful Completion of Probation
State v. Anthony L. Dawson, 2004 WI App 173
For Dawson: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a plea bargain under which the State agrees to subsequently reopen the case and amend it to a lesser charge is legally unenforceable and, thus, renders the plea unknowing and involuntary.
Holding: A reopen-and-amend provision in a plea agreement is unauthorized and unenforceable under State v.
Plea Agreements – Deferred Prosecution Agreement (§ 971.39) — Procedural Requirements
State v. Rex E. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20, PFR filed 1/8/04
For Wollenberg: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶14. Wollenberg cites State v. Jankowski, 173 Wis. 2d 522, 528, 496 N.W.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1992), to support his claim that he cannot be convicted on the basis of a legal nullity. Jankowski, however, dealt with a different scenario.
Plea Agreements – Deferred Entry of Judgment, Contrasted with Deferred Prosecution Agreement (§ 971.39)
State v. Rex E. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20, PFR filed 1/8/04
For Wollenberg: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether Wollenberg is entitled to withdraw his plea because the procedure for a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), § 971.39, wasn’t followed.
Holding:
¶6. Wollenberg presents no evidence, other than his own arguments, that there was a DPA under Wis. Stat.
Guilty Pleas – Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor – End-Run (“Negative Allocution”)
State v. Rudolph L. Jackson, 2004 WI App 132, PFR filed 6/15/04
For Jackson: Andrea Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether the prosecutor violated an agreement not to make a specific sentencing recommendation by expressing outrage at recommendations proffered on Jackson’s behalf and by urging the court to take into account the deterrent effect of its sentence.
Holding:
¶14. Jackson contends that the prosecutor breached the plea negotiation as his statements constituted an “end-run”
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge – Deportation – Retroactivity of Douangmala
State v. Olayinka Kazeem Lagundoye, 2004 WI 4, affirming 2003 WI App 63
For Lagundoye: Geoffrey Y. Muwonge
Issue/Holding: Holding of State v. Sisakhone S. Douangmala , 2002 WI 62 (non-citizen’s guilty plea invalid if colloquy omits deportation consequences, regardless of whether defendant in fact knows those consequences) does not apply retroactively to defendants who have already exhausted their direct appeals.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Plea Bargain not Binding
State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, affirming 2002 WI App 293, 259 Wis. 2d. 455, 655 N.W.2d 131
For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue1: Whether the trial court must advise a guilty plea defendant personally on the record that the court isn’t bound by a plea agreement, and ascertain whether the defendant understands this information.
Holding1:
¶27 In Wisconsin,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge – Collateral & Direct Consequences – As Affected by Misstatements in Plea Bargain
State v. Charles Brown, 2004 WI App 179
For Brown: John J. Grau
Issue: Whether a plea bargain that cannot be fulfilled results in an unknowing and involuntary plea, notwithstanding that the terms incapable of fulfillment are collateral consequences of the plea (sex offender registration and SVP eligibility).
Holding:
¶6 … (S)ince Brown’s misunderstanding involved the collateral consequences of his pleas,2 the State contends that Brown cannot prove that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary.
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-Sentencing – Procedure – Proof of Knowledge of Elements / Remedy for Lack of Proof<
State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶16. Jipson’s answers, while incriminating, have no bearing on the focus here. That is, the answers do not establish Jipson knew the State had to prove the purpose of the sexual contact was an element of the crime. The critical inquiry is whether Jipson otherwise knew at the time of entering his plea all of the essential elements of the offense so that it can be said he knowingly pled guilty to the crime.
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-Sentencing – Procedure – Burden of Proof
State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶7. When challenging a guilty or no contest plea, the defendant has the initial burden to produce a prima facie case comprised of the following two parts. First, the defendant must show the trial court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea without conforming to Wis. Stat. § 971.08 or other mandatory procedures.