On Point: 3. Required knowledge

According to a cert petition that SCOTUSblog has named a “petition of the week,” courts are split on this issue. See the question presented below. This petition is pending (not granted). We’ll keep you posted on its status.

In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) and Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017), this Court held that lawful permanent residents that received deficient advice regarding immigration-law consequences of a plea can assert claims under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Although this Court has not yet addressed how these precedents apply to unlawfully present aliens, the lower courts are deeply divided as to how they do.

James P. Moran v. Wisconsin Department of Justice, 2019 WI App 38; case activity (including briefs)

James Moran was convicted of a felony in Virginia. That state has a procedure by which a person can petition to have his or her right to own a gun restored, and Moran’s petition was successful. So he can buy a gun there. Can he buy one here?

State v. Javien Cajujuan Pegeese, 2019 WI 60, 5/31/19, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)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.

State v. Corey R. Fugere, 2019 WI 33, 3/28/19, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Pretend you’re a defendant trying to decide whether to enter a plea. You know that maximum term of imprisonment you face. You also know that pleading NGI is one of your options. However, the circuit court doesn’t tell you (or perhaps misinforms you) about the nature and length of the commitment that will follow from pleading NGI. How can you make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary NGI plea if you don’t know the consequences of it?

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.

State v. Dionte J. Nowels, 2018AP1171-CR, 1/8/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Nowels pled guilty to hit and run. He later sought plea withdrawal because during his colloquy the trial court failed to state 2 of the crime elements that the State would be required to prove at trial. The trial court agreed with him on this point, so for the plea withdrawal hearing the burden shifted to the State to prove that Nowles knew and understood those elements when he pled.

Hatem M. Shata v. Denise Symdon, No. 16-CV-574 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2018)

Shata’s case was one of two our supreme court decided on the same day–both held counsel not ineffective for failing to give accurate advice on immigration consequences. You can see our prior post for the facts and our analysis of those decisions. Basically, counsel told Shata that pleading to the charged drug count would carry a “strong chance” of deporation, when in fact deportation was mandatory. Unlike our supreme court, the federal court now says that this wasn’t good enough–and further, that the supreme court’s conclusion that it was good enough was an unreasonable application of the law that SCOTUS clearly established in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).

State v. Corey R. Fugere, 2016AP2258-CR, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 9/4/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point):

When a person enters a guilty plea to a criminal charge coupled with the defense of not responsible due to mental disease or defect under § 971.15, is a circuit court required to advise the person of the maximum term of commitment under ¶ 971.17 in addition to the maximum penalties provided for the offense?

State v. Laron Henry, 2017AP939-CR & 2017AP940-CR, District 1, 6/19/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Henry sought to withdraw his guilty pleas to three crimes. He claimed that with respect to one of the crimes, he didn’t “ratify” his guilty plea, he didn’t understand one of the elements of the crime, and there wasn’t a factual basis for the plea to the crime. The court of appeals rejects his claims.

State v. DeAnthony K. Muldrow, 2018 WI 52, 5/18/18, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2017 WI App 47; case activity (including briefs)

A unanimous supreme court holds that lifetime GPS monitoring is not punishment, so a judge doesn’t have to advise a defendant that he or she is pleading to a crime that will require lifetime monitoring.