On Point blog, page 19 of 20
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.
§ 941.29, Felon in Possession of Firearm – “Handling” = Element of “Possesses”
State v. Tyren E. Black, 2001 WI 31, 242 Wis. 2d 126, 624 N.W.2d 363
For Black: Michael S. Holzman
Issue: Whether the defendant’s admission of “handling” a gun established the element of “possesses” a firearm under § 941.29(2), for purposes of establishing a guilty plea factual basis.
Holding:
¶19 At the outset, we note the absence of any mens rea5 requirement in this statute.
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentence — Procedure — Burden of Proof: Spanish-speaking Defendant, Untranslated Questionnaire
State v. Everardo A. Lopez, 2001 WI App 265
For Lopez: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether Lopez made a prima facie showing that the plea colloquy was inadequate.
Holding: The Spanish-speaking Lopez had problems, acknowledged by the trial court, communicating with his interpreter and necessitating a continuance of the plea hearing. At neither the aborted plea hearing or the subsequent one at which the plea was accepted did the trial court determine,
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 – Factual Basis — Use of Complaint
State v. Tyren E. Black, 2001 WI 31, 242 Wis. 2d 126, 624 N.W.2d 363, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For Black: Michael S. Holzman
Issue: Whether the trial court properly found a factual basis for the guilty plea, by relying solely on the criminal complaint, where extraneous information put one of the elements in doubt.
Holding:
¶14. In essence, Black urges us to overturn this rule and find that a circuit court cannot find a factual basis for a plea in the complaint alone.
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,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — Written Questionnaire Supplying Missing Information
State v. George R. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, 232 Wis. 2d 561, 605 N.W.2d 199, affirming State v. Bollig, 224 Wis.2d 621, 593 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Bollig: Thomas E. Knothe, Collins, Quillin & Knothe, Ltd.
Issue: Whether the trial court’s failure to advise the defendant of an element during the plea colloquy entitled him to withdraw the plea.
Holding: The plea colloquy was deficient,
Guilty Pleas – Factual Basis — Personal Assent by Defendant not Necessary
State v. Terry Thomas, 2000 WI 13, 232 Wis. 2d 714, 605 N.W.2d 836, affirming unpublished decision
For Thomas: Jeffrey W. Jensen
Issue: Whether a guilty plea defendant must personally assent to the plea’s factual basis.
Holding:
¶18 This case requires us to determine to what extent a defendant must admit the facts of a crime charged in order to accept the factual basis underlying a guilty plea.
Defendant’s Presence — “Remote” Appearance by Video, at Plea and Sentencing
State v. Lawrence P. Peters, 2000 WI App 154, 237 Wis. 2d 741, 615 N.W.2d 655, petition for rev. gr., 11/15/00, reversed on other grounds, 2001 WI 74
For Peters: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether a prior offense may be used to enhance a current one, where the plea and sentencing on the prior offense were accomplished by closed-circuit television.
Holding: Although the procedure used in the prior offense violated the § 971.04(1) statutory mandate of actual physical presence,