On Point blog, page 42 of 44
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – Ignorance of Sex Offender Registration – Prejudice to State
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 should have granted Bollig’s pre-sentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea based on his ignorance of the sex offender registration requirement.
Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor — Failure to Comply with Express Terms of Sentencing Recommendation
State v. Robert D. Hanson, 2000 WI App 10, 232 Wis.2d 291, 606 N.W.2d 278
For Hanson: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue: Whether the prosecutor breached the plea bargain by failing to expressly recommend the agreed 10 year sentencing cap, on a 15-year exposure.
Holding: Even though the prosecutor did not expressly recite the 10-year cap, the parties had “referred generally to the sentencing recommendation provision of the plea agreement a number of times,”
Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor — Less Than Neutral Recitation of Recommendation
State v. Robert D. Hanson, 2000 WI App 10, 232 Wis.2d 291, 606 N.W.2d 278
For Hanson: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue: Whether the prosecutor undermined a 10-year sentencing cap by emphasizing that “this is an extremely violent case,” along with other aggravating factors.
Holding: By stressing to the trial court that she was standing by the plea agreement, “the prosecutor strongly affirmed the plea agreement and did not make any statements that expressly,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Sex Offender Registration Requirement
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 a guilty plea colloquy involving a crime that would require sex offender registration under Wis. Stat. § 301.45 must inform the defendant of that requirement for the plea to be voluntary.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Presumptive MR
State v. Stuart D. Yates, 2000 WI App 224, 239 Wis.2d 17, 619 N.W.2d 132
For Yates: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the presumptive MR date of § 302.11(1g)(am) 1997-98 is a direct or collateral consequence of a guilty plea.
Holding: A court is required to advise a defendant only of direct consequences — which have definite, immediate, and largely automatic impact on range of punishment —
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – Newly Discovered Evidence – Recantation
State v. Dennis J. Kivioja, 225 Wis.2d 271, 592 N.W.2d 220 (1999), on certification
For Kivioja: Mark G. Sukowaty.
Issue/Holding: Kivioja pleaded guilty after his codefendant, Stehle, implicated him in a string of burglaries. Following his own sentencing and prior to Kivioja’s, Stehle recanted and Kivioja moved to withdraw his pleas. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing; the court of appeals certified the appeal,
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-sentence – Original Sentence Vacated
State v. Jonathan V. Manke, 230 Wis.2d 421, 602 N.W.2d 139 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Manke: Waring R. Fincke
Issue/Holding: After a plea-based sentence has been vacated, and re-sentencing ordered, the “fair and just reason” standard applies to a motion to withdraw the plea:
Before considering if Manke met his burden of proof, our initial determination must be which is the correct standard to apply when evaluating his plea withdrawal motion.
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-sentence – bias of PSI author
State v. Steven M. Shimek, 230 Wis.2d 730, 601 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Shimek: Keith A. Findley.
Issue: Whether perceived bias on part of PSI author supports pre-sentence withdrawal of guilty plea.
Holding: Trial court’s denial of motion, along with disregarding recommendation of that PSI and allowing defense to prepare alternative PSI, was proper exercise of discretion:
The purpose of permitting plea withdrawals before sentencing under this liberal standard is to facilitate the efficient administration of justice by reducing the number of appeals contesting the knowing and voluntariness of a plea;
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-sentence: Counsel’s Alleged Failure to Investigate Alibi
State v. Jonathan L. Franklin, 228 Wis.2d 408, 596 N.W.2d 855 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Franklin: Archie E. Simonson.
Holding: Franklin’s effort to withdraw his guilty plea, based on a claim that his attorney failed to investigate an alibi, is rebuffed. His attorney testified at a plea-withdrawal hearing that Franklin had already admitted that the alibi was false, and that the attorney had told Franklin he was ethically barred from presenting witnesses he knew were lying.
Guilty Pleas – Post-Sentencing Plea Withdrawal: Discovery of Exculpatory Evidence
State v. Michael R. Sturgeon, 231 Wis.2d 487, 605 N.W.2d 589 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Sturgeon: Terry Evan Williams.
Issue/Holding: To prevail on a motion to withdraw guilty plea based on postplea discovery of exculpatory information, a defendant must prove (a) the existence of exculpatory evidence (b) in the exclusive control of the prosecution (c) unknown to the defense, the withholding of which (d) caused the guilty plea.
Sturgeon pleaded guilty to burglary,