On Point: D. Plea withdrawal

State v. Terron Anthony Clayborn, 2023AP283-CR, 8/20/24, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In a case presenting a common postconviction fact pattern alleging an improper promise by counsel, COA affirms despite postconviction testimony largely corroborating the defendant’s account.

State v. Cordiaral F. West, 2022AP2196, 5/1/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

COA interprets a statute allowing aggregation of separate drug offenses into a single charge and holds that West is not entitled to plea withdrawal.

State v. Megan E. Zeien, 2023AP1787-CR, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

If you’ve ever wondered whether you have a Bangert claim concerning a circuit court’s failure to “ascertain personally whether a factual basis exists to support [your client’s] plea,” this unpublished but citable decision is worth a read. Unfortunately, the decision is a bit unclear about how exactly the state may seek to establish that Zeien’s pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary at an evidentiary hearing. See Op., ¶¶19, 22.

State v. Kasey Ann Gomolla, 2022AP199-CR, 2/6/24, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity

Even if the court of appeals had not recommended this decision for publication, Gomolla’s case seems destined for further review. While the facts here are somewhat distinguishable from State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64, Cross’ counter-intuitive holding, even with arguably “better” facts, seems to have hamstringed the court of appeals from acknowledging that a plea cannot be said to be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” if the defendant does not know the correct maximum penalty. If we had to guess, SCOW will soon be considering whether to reconsider, limit, or overrule Cross. 

State v. Matthew Robert Mayotte, 2022AP1695, 1/23/24, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Given the state of the postconviction record and COA’s narrow reading of precedent, Mayotte fails to establish he is entitled to plea withdrawal given his misunderstanding of the consequences of his Alford plea.

State v. Dustin J. VanderGalien, 2023AP890-CR, 12/29/23, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity

VanderGalien pled no contest to three counts stemming from a fatal motor vehicle crash after a non-impairing cocaine metabolite (benzoylecgonine or “BE”) was detected in his blood hours after the incident. The court of appeals rejects his facial challenge to the statute, Wis. Stat. § 340.01(50m)(c), which includes BE as a restricted controlled substance under the motor vehicle code. The court of appeals explains that “the inclusion of cocaine or any of its metabolites in the definition of a restricted controlled substance for purposes of prosecution under the Wisconsin motor vehicle code bears a rational relationship to the purpose or objective of the statutory scheme,” which is to combat drugged driving. Op., ¶30.

State v. B.M., 2023AP1137, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite an intervening decision from SCOW which generated skepticism as to whether parents can obtain plea withdrawal when a circuit court miscommunicates the burden of proof in a TPR plea colloquy, COA nevertheless reverses and remands in this case presenting yet another “A.G.” claim.

State v. William J. Buffo, 2022AP1803-4-CR, District IV, 7/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs available)

In another messy pro se appeal, COA overlooks the State’s failure to file a response brief and affirms the circuit court’s “evidently correct” decision.

State v. N.H., 2022AP1945, District 1, 03/14/2023, (one-judge decision, not eligible for publication) case activity

This case presents a relatively straightforward application of how Bangert applies to termination of parental rights pleas. As noted by the decision, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently considering a more nuanced version of the issue in State v. A.G. In Nico’s (N.H.) case, the court of appeals again holds that a circuit court’s incorrect explanation of the applicable statutory standard at disposition entitles the parent to an evidentiary hearing under Bangert to determine whether the state can prove the parent’s plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Opinion, ¶1.

State v. Ahmed A.M. Al Bawi, 2021AP432-CR, District 3, 1/18/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Al Bawi’s trial attorney was not ineffective in advising him about the immigration consequences of his plea.