On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Defense win: Defects in plea colloquy require plea withdrawal
State v. Caroline J. Arndt, 2022AP450-CR, District 2, 10/12/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Arndt pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct, but the circuit court’s plea colloquy was defective in two crucial ways, so on the merits—and because the state declined to file a brief in the court of appeals—she’s entitled to withdraw her plea.
SCOW: Courts taking guilty pleas needn’t cover each constitutional right being waived
State v. Javien Cajujuan Pegeese, 2019 WI 60, 5/31/19, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Pegeese pleaded guilty to a robbery and received probation. He later sought plea withdrawal, asserting the circuit court’s colloquy had been deficient because it didn’t inform him of the constitutional rights he was waiving, and further alleging that he actually did not understand those rights–that is, he asserted a Bangert-type plea-withdrawal claim. The supreme court now holds the colloquy not deficient, because the court referred to the plea questionnaire form on which the rights were listed, asked Pegeese’s attorney whether he believed Pegeese understood the questionnaire, and asked Pegeese himself whether he understood “the Constitutional Rights you give up when you enter a plea” and confirmed that Pegeese had no questions about those rights.
SCOW to decide whether circuit court must inform defendant of each constitutional right waived by a guilty plea
State v. Javien Cajujuan Pegeese, 2017AP741-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 1/15/19; affirmed 5/31/19; case activity (including briefs)
Issue:
Whether the circuit court’s failure to personally insure that the defendant understood each constitutional right waived by his guilty plea entitled him to a Bangert evidentiary hearing to determine whether his plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Court of appeals finds faults in motion to withdraw plea, but not in colloquy
State v. Donald L. White, 2017AP188-CR, 8/23/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
White argued that his plea colloquy was defective because the circuit court did not (1) sufficiently describe the nature of the charge against him, (2) ascertain his education or level of comprehension, especially of the constitutional rights that he was waiving, (3) advise him that he was not bound by the plea agreement and could impose the maximum penalty. He relied primarily on State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 716 N.W.2d 906. The court of appeals distinguished White from Brown and affirmed the decision to deny the motion for plea withdrawal without a hearing.
Plea withdrawal denied due to lack of evidence of intoxication during plea hearing
State v. Santos Lee Hernandez, 2017AP62-CR, 7/11/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Hernandez filed a postconviction motion arguing that he pled guilty to lewd and lascivious behavior while he was drunk–so drunk that he incorrectly told the court that he had not consumed alcohol within the previous 24 hours, that he understood the rights he was waiving, and that there was a factual basis for his plea. In rejecting his claim, the court of appeals commits an error that continues to dog postconviction motions.
Court of appeals affirms plea though defendant misunderstood appellate rights; trips over law governing plea withdrawal and IAC
State v. Jeromy Miller, 2014AP1246-CR, 2/24/15, District 2 (not recommended for publication); click here for docket and briefs
This decision smells like SCOW bait. Miller pleaded guilty believing that he had the right to appeal the circuit court’s denial of his pre-trial motion to dismiss. Both the court and defense counsel told him so. The State concedes they were wrong. The court of appeals held the error harmless because the motion had no merit. In doing so it bungled case law re plea withdrawal and the “prejudice” prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Rights
State v. Richard A. Lange, 2003 WI App 2
For Lange: Daniel F. Snyder
Issue/Holding: Trial court’s colloquy sufficiently established defendant’s understanding of rights waived by guilty plea. ¶¶23-27.