On Point blog, page 2 of 2
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Understanding Nature of Charge – Colloquy, Generally
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: The defendant’s understanding of the charge must be detailed, in anon-perfunctory manner, on the record of the guilty plea:
¶52 The circuit court did not establish Howell’s understanding of the information it relayed to Howell by personally questioning him. Rather than asking Howell to summarize his understanding,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements (Understanding Nature of Charge) – Party-to-a-Crime Liability
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: The court must address the defendant personally and establish his or her understanding of the nature of the charge, and if ptac liability is alleged then that theory must be included in the plea colloquy, ¶¶36-37, citing State v. James E. Brown,
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentencing — Procedure — Pleading Requirements for Evidentiary Hearing on Bangert Motion Relative to Nature of Charge
State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶59 To earn a Bangert evidentiary hearing, a defendant must satisfy a second obligation. In addition to making a prima facie case that the circuit court erred in the plea colloquy, a defendant must allege he did not enter a knowing,
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentencing – Procedure – Pleading Requirements – Sexual Assault
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2005 WI App 265, reversed, 2007 WI 74
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether Lackershire, an adult female convicted of sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, established a prima facie case for plea-withdrawal due to lack of adequate understanding of the elements.
Holding:
¶8 Initially, we note that in a plea withdrawal motion like Lackershire’s,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — 2nd-Degree Sexual Assault (by Contact), § 948.02(2) — “Knowing Contact” Insufficient
State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: On a charge of 2nd-degree sexual assault, § 948.02(2), the guilty plea court must ascertain the defendant’s knowledge of the element of intent, namely that the defendant had sexual contact for the purpose of sexual degradation, humiliation, arousal, or gratification. It is insufficient to advise the defendant merely that “knowing contact” was necessary,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — Referenced Document not Attached to Plea Questionnaire
State v. Richard A. Lange, 2003 WI App 2
For Lange: Daniel F. Snyder
Issue/Holding: Where the plea form made reference to an “attached sheet” which was not in fact attached, and the trial court did not go over the elements with the defendant, “the record is barren as to any explanation or detailing to Lange of the elements of the offense,” and Lange has established a prima facie case for plea-withdrawal.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — Court Need Not Explain How State Must Prove Each Element
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,
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 – 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 – 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.