On Point blog, page 43 of 44
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,
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule – Issues Waived — “Becker” Issue
State v. Chad D. Schroeder, 224 Wis.2d 706, 593 N.W.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Schroeder: Patrick C. Brennan.
Issue/Holding: A guilty plea waives any right to a hearing under State v. Becker, 74 Wis. 2d 675, 247 N.W.2d 495 (1976) (whether state manipulated adult court in not commencing case I juvenile court). A Becker issue, in other words, is one of potential constitutional,
Plea Bargains — Renegotiation of Original Bargain After Unilateral Prosecutorial Withdrawal
State v. Antonio A. Scott, 230 Wis.2d 643, 602 N.W.2d 296 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Scott: Jennifer L. Weston.
Issue: Whether Scott was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney allowed him to renegotiate an already-consummated plea bargain without advising that the original agreement was enforceable.
Holding: Counsel’s failure to inform Scott that he had a fully enforceable right to performance of the original plea bargain,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — Incomplete Advice in Plea Questionnaire Irrelevant Where Plea Court Relies Exclusively on Oral Colloquy
State v. Michael Brandt, 226 Wis.2d 610, 594 N.W.2d 759 (1999), affirming State v. Brandt, 220 Wis.2d 121, 582 N.W.2d 433 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Brandt: Michael J. Fitzgerald & Dean A. Strang.
Holding:
¶24 Where, as here, a circuit court ignores the plea questionnaire in its colloquy concerning the elements of the crimes, the adequacy of that colloquy rises or falls on the circuit court’s discussion at the plea hearing.
Guilty Pleas – Factual Basis — Questions of Disputed Fact Not Reviewable
State v. Harold Merryfield, 229 Wis.2d 52, 598 N.W.2d 251 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Merryfield: Edward J. Hunt
Holding: Merryfield was originally charged with one felony and one misdemeanor. Pursuant to a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor, and the state agreed to drop the felony (but critically, as it turns out, didn’t formally move to dismiss; nor did the trial court formally dismiss it). The case was adjourned for sentencing,
Guilty Pleas – Factual Basis — Battery
State v. Charles Dante Higgs, 230 Wis.2d 1, 601 N.W.2d 653 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Higgs: Joseph E. Redding
Issue: Whether a sufficient factual basis was established on the element of bodily harm (where the defendant splashed the victim’s face with urine) to support a guilty plea to battery.
Holding: The mere fact that urine struck the victim’s face isn’t enough to establish bodily harm, but the victim’s preliminary hearing testimony that he felt stinging and burning satisfied the element.
Guilty Pleas – Entry of Plea by Defendant — Express, Personal Entry is “Preferred” but Unnecessary So Long As Intent to Enter Plea Is Only Inference Possible
State v. Darrin D. Burns, 226 Wis.2d 762, 594 N.W.2d 799 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Burns: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶3 We affirm the judgment of conviction in this case, even though the defendant did not expressly and personally articulate a plea of no contest on the record in open court, because the only inference possible from the totality of the facts and circumstances in the record is that the defendant intended to plead no contest.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Firearm Possession Prohibition
State v. Frank J. Kosina, 226 Wis.2d 482, 595 N.W.2d 464 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Kosina: Daniel F. Snyder
Holding: Guilty plea defendant need not be advised of permanent prohibition on firearms possession flowing from 18 USCA §§ 921 & 921, for conviction “of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” because it is a collateral consequence of the plea.