On Point: 3. Required knowledge

State v. Joseph E. Koll, Jr., 2009 WI App 74, PFR filed 4/29/09
For Koll: Alexander L. Ullenberg

Issue: Whether Koll’s conviction of so-called “non-domestic” disorderly conduct was for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(A), so as to preclude him from obtaining a handgun.

Holding: The federal Gun Control Act bars gun possession to anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” 18 U.S.C.

State v. David G. Straszkowski, 2008 WI 65, affirming summary order
For Straszkowski Philip J. Brehm

Issue: Whether, for a guilty plea to be “knowing and intelligent,” the defendant must be aware that a read-in is deemed an admission for sentencing purposes.

Holding:

¶3   We conclude that the record clearly demonstrates that neither the State, nor trial defense counsel, nor the circuit court referred to the read-in charges as admitted or deemed admitted for sentencing purposes or for any other purpose. 

State v. David G. Straszkowski, 2008 WI 65, affirming summary order
For Straszkowski Philip J. Brehm

Issue: Whether a guilty plea colloquy must include an explicit warning that the defendant’s agreement to read in a dismissed charge will be deemed an admission of that charge for sentencing purposes.

Holding:

¶5   Although the case law on read-in charges is neither consistent nor clear,

State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Failure to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea triggers Bangert procedure, ¶¶56-59, citing State v. Monika Lackershire, 2007 WI 74. In this instance (because of a last-minute inclusion of a ptac theory the complaint didn’t assert any accomplice- or vicarious-liability facts;

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,

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶27 n. 7:

This court explained the procedure for read-in charges in Austin v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 727, 183 N.W.2d 56 (1971). When charges are read in during sentencing, the defendant admits to having committed the underlying crimes, but does not plead guilty to the charges,

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: In order to trigger read-in procedure there must be a sufficient showing of an agreement to read in the offense at issue:

¶28      Nowhere in the transcript of the plea hearing, the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the transcript of the adjourned sentencing hearing,

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,

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶28 n. 8:

We do not adopt the court of appeals’ determinations that read-in charges are merely “collateral consequences” of a plea, and that therefore information about read-ins “is not a prerequisite to entering a knowing and intelligent plea.” Lackershire, 288 Wis. 2d 609,

State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: A plea colloquy is not required to caution the defendant that punishment for each of multiple charges could be imposed consecutively, ¶78.