On Point: B. Procedure and colloquy

State v. Laron Henry, 2017AP939-CR & 2017AP940-CR, District 1, 6/19/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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

State v. Harlan L. Schultz, 2017AP2185, 4/26/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Schultz moved under § 974.06 to withdraw his no contest plea to OWI 4th. He argues that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to file a motion challenging the traffic stop and that he didn’t understand everything he was giving up when he entered a plea. The court of appeals rejects both claims.

State v. Corey R. Fugere, 2018 WI App 24, affirmed, 2019 WI 33; case activity (including briefs)

Because civil commitment is neither punishment nor a direct consequence of a guilty or no contest plea, a defendant entering an NGI plea does not have to be advised during the plea colloquy of the maximum term of commitment that could be ordered.

State v. Arthur Allen Freiboth, 2015AP2535-CR, District IV, 2/26/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

…[W]e certify the present appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide whether a defendant who was not advised at the time of the plea that he or she faced multiple mandatory DNA surcharges has grounds for plea withdrawal.

State v. Shannon Olance Hendricks, 2018 WI 15, 2/20/18, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, case activity (including briefs)

Can a defendant knowingly and intelligently plead guilty to a charge that requires proof of intent to do “X” if the defendant does not know what “X” is? The majority answers “yes.” Justice Abrahamson (joined by A.W. Bradley) answers “no.” Kurt Vonnegut fans will Shirley enjoy the dissent. 🙂 

State v. Erik M. Smith, 2016AP2453-CR, District 3, 2/13/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The body of Eric Volp, a resident of Michigan when he disappeared, was found in a creek in Marinette County. After a long investigation Smith was eventually charged in Marinette County with killing Volp by running over him with his car and then hiding his corpse and he eventually pleaded guilty to most of the charges. (¶¶2-9). But as the criminal complaint itself acknowledged (¶7), the investigation never resolved whether Volp was killed in Marinette County or in Michigan. Despite that uncertainty the court of appeals holds there was sufficient factual basis to establish Wisconsin had territorial jurisdiction.

State v. Amanda L. Longley, 2017AP659-CR, District 4, 2/8/18 (1-judge opinion. ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals here answers this questions “no,” based on SCOW’s recent and narrow reading of Padilla in State v. Le Mere, 2016 WI 41, 368 Wis. 2d 624, 879 N.W.2d 580. See Mike Tobin’s post on Le Mere here). But Wisconsin’s case law is conflicting, suggesting that this issue may be worthy of scrutiny by a higher court.

State v. Marcos Rosas Villegas, 2018 WI App 9; case activity (including briefs)

This opinion resolves 2 issues worthy of publication and has already generated a petition for review (from an earlier version of the opinion, which was withdrawn and has now been replaced).  According to the court of appeals, an attorney does not perform deficiently by failing to inform his client, an undocumented immigrant, that a plea would render him inadmissible to the U.S. and ineligible for DACA. Furthermore–for the first time–the court of appeals holds that the “guilty plea waiver” rule applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless such a claim is offered as a reason to overturn the plea itself.

State v. Mario Douglas, 2018 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)

Douglas got inaccurate advice about the prison time he faced if he went to trial instead of taking the State’s plea offer. The inaccurate advice makes his plea invalid.