On Point: B. Procedure and colloquy

State v. Abraham C. Negrete, 2012 WI 92, affirming summary order; case activity

Negrete’s motion to withdraw his 1992 guilty plea, on the ground that he wasn’t personally advised of deportation consequences, § 971.08(2), was denied by the circuit court without a hearing. The court upholds that result:

¶2   In support of his motion, Negrete stated in an affidavit that he “do[es] not recall”

State v. Lee Roy Cain, 2012 WI 68, affirming unpublished decision; case activity

Post-Sentencing Plea-Withdrawal, Generally 

When a defendant satisfies the burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of a “manifest injustice,” the plea should be withdrawn as a matter of right:

¶26  …  State v. Daley sets out the following list of circumstances where manifest injustice occurs:[6]

1.

Holder v. Carlos Martinez Gutierrez, USSC No. 10-1542, 5/21/12, reversing 411 Fed. Appx. 121 and 399 Fed. Appx. 313

The Attorney General has discretion under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(a) to allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the U.S., if the alien satisfies three criteria: minimum of five years as a lawful permanent resident; continuous residence in the U.S. for at least seven years after lawful admission,

court of appeals certification; for Taylor: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post

Issue (from Certification): 

Whether understating the potential penalty during a plea colloquy can properly be deemed harmless error, and if so, where in the analytical framework of Bangert such a determination should be made.

The guilty plea court misinformed Taylor that the maximum he faced was 6,

court of appeals certification; for Taylor: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; review granted, 3/15/12

Guilty Pleas – Plea Colloquy 

Certified Issue: 

Whether a plea colloquy’s understating the potential penalty is subject to harmless error analysis, such that if the subsequently-imposed sentence doesn’t exceed the misadvised maximum, plea-withdrawal isn’t supported.

The details: Taylor was charged as a repeater with an offense carrying an underlying maximum of 6 years with the enhancer adding a potential 2 years.

State v. James Lee Johnson, 2012 WI App 21 (recommended for publication); for Johnson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The guilty plea colloquy was defective, in that it failed to advise Johnson that the trial court wasn’t obliged to follow the terms of the plea bargain (here: to dismiss and read-in a count), contrary to State v. Hampton,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

Plea Withdrawal – Nelson/Bentley Hearing – Exculpatory Evidence 

Ardell wasn’t entitled to a hearing on his postconviction plea-withdrawal motion premised on alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence. The court holds that, even assuming that the State did withhold exculpatory evidence, the motion failed to show that revelation of this evidence would have impacted Ardell’s plea decision,

State v. Charles A. Clayton-Jones, 2010AP2239-CR, District 4, 12/15/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clayton-Jones: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell; case activity

 Clayton-Jones resolved a 2006 charge (involving sexual assault of a boy) with a plea bargain, in which the state was to recommend 12 years initial confinement. Before sentencing, he allegedly violated bond conditions, and the state sought to be relieved of its bargained-for allocution limit.

on review of unpublished decision; for Cain: Faun M. Moses, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post

Guilty Plea Procedure – Defendant’s Denial of Element / Manifest Injustice

Issues (composed by On Point): 

1. Whether, if a defendant at the guilty-plea proceeding explicitly denies the existence of an elemental fact, the trial court must decline to accept the plea.

2.

on review of summary order (District 2); for Negrete: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

Plea Withdrawal – Collateral Attack – Deportation Consequences 

Issues (Composed by On Point):

1. Whether the laches doctrine bars Negrete’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, 18 years after he entered it.

2. Whether Negrete’s assertion that he didn’t know his plea exposed him to deportation entitles him to a hearing on his motion.