On Point blog, page 13 of 14
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge – Collateral & Direct Consequences – As Affected by Misstatements in Plea Bargain
State v. Charles Brown, 2004 WI App 179
For Brown: John J. Grau
Issue: Whether a plea bargain that cannot be fulfilled results in an unknowing and involuntary plea, notwithstanding that the terms incapable of fulfillment are collateral consequences of the plea (sex offender registration and SVP eligibility).
Holding:
¶6 … (S)ince Brown’s misunderstanding involved the collateral consequences of his pleas,2 the State contends that Brown cannot prove that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary.
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 — 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.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Federal Health Care Ineligibility, 42 U.S.C., § 1320a-7(a)(4)
State v. Hank J. Merten, 2003 WI App 171
For Merten: Dana W. Duncan
Issue/Holding:
¶8. Accordingly, the resolution of this appeal requires us to determine whether the effect of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a)(4), which excludes individuals convicted of a felony related to a controlled substance from participating in federal health care programs, is a direct or a collateral consequence of Merten’s no contest plea.
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 — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Presumptive Minimum Penalty
State v. Paul Delao Quiroz, 2002 WI App 52
For Quiroz: Chad G. Kerkman
Issue:Whether defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea on the basis that he was unaware of the three-year presumptive minimum sentence on the weapon enhancer.
Holding:
¶25 Both the complaint and the information contained the dangerous weapon enhancer and set forth the presumptive three-year minimum penalty. Quiroz admitted that he was familiar with both the complaint and the information and was aware that the dangerous weapon enhancer applied when he pled guilty.
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 — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Parole Eligibility, When Set by Court
State v. Jeremy J. Byrge, 2000 WI 101, 237 Wis. 2d 197, 614 N.W.2d 477, affirming as modified State v. Byrge, 225 Wis. 2d 702, 594 N.W.2d 388
For Byrge: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court, before accepting a plea of guilty or no contest [to a crime punishable by life imprisonment], must inform a defendant that it possesses the authority to fix the parole eligibility date.”
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Out-of-State Prison Transfer
State v. Anthony A. Parker, 2001 WI App 111
Issue: Whether transfer to an out-of-state prison is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea.
Holding:
¶8. In addition, we agree with the State that transfer to an out-of-state prison is a collateral consequence of Parker’s plea of no contest….
¶9. We have held that collateral consequences include deportation, restitution, subsequent filing of a sexually violent person petition,