On Point: 21. Guilty pleas

State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶27 … Here, Grindemann did object to the prosecutor’s mention of uncharged offenses at sentencing, but the objection was based on the lack of evidence ‘properly before the court,’ not on any claim that the State was violating either the terms or the ‘spirit’ of the plea agreement.

State v. John T. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, affirming unpublished decision
For Trochinski: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the defendant met his burden of showing a prima facie case that he didn’t understand an element of the offense to which he pleaded guilty.

Holding:

¶22. Wisconsin’s courts have been relying on Bangert since it was written in 1986,

State v. Scott G. Zuniga, 2002 WI App 233, PFR filed 9/13/02
For Zuniga: Chad G. Kerkman

Issue/Holding: Because the defendant was warned by the judge at a bond-release hearing that if he engaged in misconduct the state would seek a longer sentence, “the parties effectively modified the plea agreement by making the State’s obligation conditional upon Zuniga’s good behavior while in the community. In proceeding under these circumstances,

State v. Paul Delao Quiroz, 2002 WI App 52
For Quiroz: Chad G. Kerkman

Issue:Whether defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea on the basis that he was unaware of the three-year presumptive minimum sentence on the weapon enhancer.

Holding:

¶25 Both the complaint and the information contained the dangerous weapon enhancer and set forth the presumptive three-year minimum penalty. Quiroz admitted that he was familiar with both the complaint and the information and was aware that the dangerous weapon enhancer applied when he pled guilty.

State v. Peter G. Tkacz, 2002 WI App 281, PFR filed 11/14/02
For Tkacz: Mark S. Rosen

Issue/Holding: Even assuming that the law of vindictive prosecution (presumption of vindictiveness attaches to less favorable prosecutorial action following successful appeal) applies to failure to re-offer same plea bargain following reversal of conviction, the facts would not support vindictiveness. The prosecutor offered a less favorable resolution because he had additional evidence and a stronger case,

State v. Jeremy J. Hanson, 2001 WI 70, 244 Wis. 2d 405, 628 N.W.2d 759, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Hanson: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether a guilty or no contest plea waives the right to challenge the defendant’s status as an habitual traffic offender, and the right to challenge the HTO sentencing penalty as unauthorized.

Holding:

¶21. Section 973.13 requires Wisconsin courts to declare a sentence void ‘[i]n any case where the court imposes a maximum penalty in excess of that authorized by law.’

State v. David W. Oakley, 2001 WI 103, 629 N.W.2d 308, reconsideration denied, 2001 WI 123, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Oakley: Timothy T. Kay

Issue: Whether a claim of plea bargain error was waived by a subsequent renegotiation of the plea bargain and entry of no contest plea on that new agreement.

Holding:

¶23  As this court has previously stated,

State v. Tyren E. Black, 2001 WI 31, 242 Wis. 2d 126, 624 N.W.2d 363
For Black: Michael S. Holzman

Issue: Whether the defendant’s admission of “handling” a gun established the element of “possesses” a firearm under § 941.29(2), for purposes of establishing a guilty plea factual basis.

Holding:

¶19 At the outset, we note the absence of any mens rea5 requirement in this statute.

State v. Dennis R. Fosnow, 2001 WI App 2, 240 Wis. 2d 699, 624 N.W.2d 883
For Fosnow: David D. Cook

Issue: Whether a postconviction diagnosis supporting an NGI defense amounted to newly discovered evidence, where the defendant had pled no contest after receiving unfavorable NGI evaluations.

Holding: The new diagnosis was merely a new appreciation of the importance of evidence previously known but not used and therefore didn’t satisfy the test for newly discovered evidence.

State v. Everardo A. Lopez, 2001 WI App 265
For Lopez: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether plea withdrawal is the appropriate remedy where the record contains no evidence that Lopez understood all elements of the offense

Holding:

¶22. The proper remedy upon determining that the State failed to establish that Lopez understood the elements of the offense with which he was charged when he entered his no contest plea is to remand the case to permit Lopez to withdraw his plea.