On Point: 21. Guilty pleas

State v. Leonard C. Matson, 2003 WI App 253
For Matson: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶13. Matson argues his due process rights were violated when Alstadt, the investigating detective in this case, gave a sentencing recommendation that undermined the State’s recommendation, in effect, breaching the plea agreement. The State counters that Alstadt was not a party to the plea agreement and thus his letter did not violate Matson’s due process rights.

State v. Leonard C. Matson, 2003 WI App 253
For Matson: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶33. Here, as he did before the circuit court, Matson seeks not to withdraw his plea, which is one remedy for a breach of a plea agreement. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 263 (1971). Matson instead seeks specific performance, a new sentencing by a different judge with a new presentence report.

State v. Robert C. Deilke, 2004 WI 104, reversing 2003 WI App 151, 266 Wis. 2d 274, 667 N.W.2d 867
For Deilke: Kelly J. McKnight

Issue: Whether a defendant’s successful challenge to a prior plea-bargain based conviction that is being used as an enhancer in a current proceeding amounts to a breach of that prior plea bargain so as to allow reinstatement of charges dismissed under it.

State v. Hank J. Merten, 2003 WI App 171
For Merten: Dana W. Duncan

Issue/Holding:

¶8. Accordingly, the resolution of this appeal requires us to determine whether the effect of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a)(4), which excludes individuals convicted of a felony related to a controlled substance from participating in federal health care programs, is a direct or a collateral consequence of Merten’s no contest plea.

 State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee

Issue/Holding: Although a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is not waived by a guilty plea (because such a defect would go to subject matter jurisdiction, something not subject to waiver), an “as applied” challenged is waived by the plea. ¶46.

State v. John D. Williams, 2002 WI 1, affirming 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164
For Williams: John A. Pray

Issue/Holding:

¶46. We must examine the entire sentencing proceeding to evaluate the prosecutor’s remarks. Upon reviewing the State’s comments in the context of the sentencing hearing, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the State stepped over the fine line between relaying information to the circuit court on the one hand and undercutting the plea agreement on the other hand.

State v. John D. Williams, 2002 WI 1, affirming 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164
For Williams: John A. Pray

Issue1: The terms of the plea agreement and the relevant state’s conduct are questions of fact, reviewed deferentially; whether that conduct amounts to a material and substantial breach is a question of law, reviewed independently. ¶4. The court clarifies, in the face of prior conflicting lower court opinions,

State v. Robert S. Robinson, 2002 WI 9, on certification
For Robinson: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶2. The question of law raised on appeal is what is the appropriate remedy when an accused is convicted on the basis of a negotiated plea agreement and the counts later are determined to be multiplicitous, violating the accused’s state and federal constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy? ….

¶3.

State v. Douglas J. Lasky, 2002 WI App 126, PFR filed 5/16/02
For Lasky: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Claim of “statutory double jeopardy,” § 939.71, not barred by guilty plea waiver rule; court therefore may consider merits of whether elements of federal bank robbery conviction are the same, and therefore preclude prosecution of, state armed robbery.

State v. Anthony J. Randle, 2002 WI App 116, PFR filed 4/2/02
For Randle: Paul G. Bonneson

Issue: Whether a territorial jurisdiction objection (that none of the constitutent elements occurred in the state, § 939.03(1)) is waived by guilty plea to a lesser offense.
Holding:

¶14 In this case, we need not decide whether a defendant may waive territorial jurisdiction altogether-that is, when an issue arises as to whether the charging document charges a crime that is committed wholly outside the territorial jurisdiction of Wisconsin.