On Point blog, page 41 of 44
Plea Agreements — Deferred-acceptance Agreement — Enforceability
State v. Brady T. Terrill, 2001 WI App 70, 242 Wis. 2d 415, 625 N.W.2d 353
For Terrill: Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue: Whether the trial court properly reconsidered a deferred-acceptance agreement (which would have allowed the defendant to avoid conviction upon successful completion of supervision), entering judgement of conviction after deeming the offense more serious than originally thought.
Holding:
¶24. If the State had asked the circuit court to enter judgment on the felony after viewing the videotape,
Plea Bargains — Breach: Procedural Issues — Preservation by Objection
State v. John D. Williams, 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164, affirmed without discussing this issue, 2002 WI 1
For Williams: John A. Pray
Issue: Whether the defendant properly preserved objection to a prosecutorial breach of plea bargain.
Holding: ¶13:
(T)he trial court recognized it as an objection and initially agreed with Williams’s attorney. The objection was sufficient.
Plea Bargains — Breach: Materiality — Promise Must Induce Plea
State v. Anthony A. Parker, 2001 WI App 111
Issue: Whether transfer to an out-of-state prison breached the plea bargain.
Holding:
¶7 … (I)n order to prevail on a claim of breach of a plea agreement, Parker cannot rely on whatever his ‘reasonable expectations’ might have been at sentencing. Instead, he must show the violation of a specific prosecutorial promise that induced his plea. See State v.
Plea Bargains — Breach: Limiting Defense Presentation at Sentencing
State v. Shomari L. Robinson, 2001 WI App 127, PFR filed 5/7/01
For Robinson: Joseph L. Sommers
Issue: Whether the plea bargain was breached when the defendant wasn’t allowed to present certain evidence at sentencing.
Holding:
¶16 … (T)he trial court did not clearly err in finding that the plea agreement called for argument by the parties, and at most, a very limited presentation of evidence at sentencing regarding the nature of the sexual assault.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — Burglary with Intent to Commit Felony — Specific Felony
State v. Earl Steele, 2001 WI App 34, 241 Wis. 2d 269, 625 N.W.2d 595
For Steele: Timothy J. Gaskell
Issue: Whether the colloquy on a guilty plea to burglary/intent-to-commit-felony must apprise the defendant of the specific felony.
Holding:
¶8 The trial court chose to summarize WIS. STAT. § 943.10 during colloquy, in combination with questioning defense counsel. Steele contends that this summary was inadequate,
Guilty Pleas – Factual Basis — Use of Complaint
State v. Tyren E. Black, 2001 WI 31, 242 Wis. 2d 126, 624 N.W.2d 363, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For Black: Michael S. Holzman
Issue: Whether the trial court properly found a factual basis for the guilty plea, by relying solely on the criminal complaint, where extraneous information put one of the elements in doubt.
Holding:
¶14. In essence, Black urges us to overturn this rule and find that a circuit court cannot find a factual basis for a plea in the complaint alone.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Parole Eligibility, When Set by Court
State v. Jeremy J. Byrge, 2000 WI 101, 237 Wis. 2d 197, 614 N.W.2d 477, affirming as modified State v. Byrge, 225 Wis. 2d 702, 594 N.W.2d 388
For Byrge: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court, before accepting a plea of guilty or no contest [to a crime punishable by life imprisonment], must inform a defendant that it possesses the authority to fix the parole eligibility date.”
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Out-of-State Prison Transfer
State v. Anthony A. Parker, 2001 WI App 111
Issue: Whether transfer to an out-of-state prison is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea.
Holding:
¶8. In addition, we agree with the State that transfer to an out-of-state prison is a collateral consequence of Parker’s plea of no contest….
¶9. We have held that collateral consequences include deportation, restitution, subsequent filing of a sexually violent person petition,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — Written Questionnaire Supplying Missing Information
State v. George R. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, 232 Wis. 2d 561, 605 N.W.2d 199, affirming State v. Bollig, 224 Wis.2d 621, 593 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Bollig: Thomas E. Knothe, Collins, Quillin & Knothe, Ltd.
Issue: Whether the trial court’s failure to advise the defendant of an element during the plea colloquy entitled him to withdraw the plea.
Holding: The plea colloquy was deficient,
Guilty Pleas – Factual Basis — Personal Assent by Defendant not Necessary
State v. Terry Thomas, 2000 WI 13, 232 Wis. 2d 714, 605 N.W.2d 836, affirming unpublished decision
For Thomas: Jeffrey W. Jensen
Issue: Whether a guilty plea defendant must personally assent to the plea’s factual basis.
Holding:
¶18 This case requires us to determine to what extent a defendant must admit the facts of a crime charged in order to accept the factual basis underlying a guilty plea.