On Point: D. Plea withdrawal

State v. Julius C. Burton, 2013 WI 61, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; unanimous opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity

In a case of interest primarily, if not exclusively, to lawyers handling postconviction proceedings in state courts, the supreme court holds Burton’s plea withdrawal motion was insufficient to merit an evidentiary hearing because it failed to allege sufficient facts to support either the ineffective assistance of counsel claim or the claim Burton’s plea was invalid because of a defective plea colloquy.

State v. Juan M. Rodriguez-Faustino, 2012AP2777, District 1, May 29, 2013; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Rodriguez-Faustino pled to a misdemeanor drug offense and, in January 2007, was placed on probation for 12 months. (¶¶4-5). In September 2012 he filed a motion to withdraw his plea, asserting his attorney was ineffective under Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1475‑1476 (2010),

State v. Edward Devon Smart, 2012AP1178-CR, District 1, 5/7/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Smart is not entitled to plea withdrawal based on co-actor’s testimony that he coerced Smart to commit the crime because the coercion evidence could have been presented using other witnesses known to defendant before he entered his plea:

¶7        Smart argues that Rushing’s testimony is new because he did not know Rushing would testify that he forced Smart to rob the victims.  

State v. Nely B. Robles, 2013 WI App 76; case activity.

Issue:  When accepting a guilty plea is the circuit court required to specify whether the defendant is pleading to a felony or a misdemeanor?

Robles sought to withdraw her guilty plea on the grounds that the circuit court’s failure to specify the designation of the charged crime violated Wis. Stats.  § 971.08(1)(a)’s requirement that she be informed of the “nature of the charge.”  

State v. Gerald D. Taylor, 2013 WI 34, on review of court of appeals certification; case activity

In a split decision, the supreme court holds that a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under the long-established procedure established by State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986), even though the trial court misinformed him of the maximum penalty he faced:

¶8        We hold that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly,

State v. Taylor continues what the supreme court began in State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64:  Dismantling by implication the well-established Bangert procedures and creating new ways for trial courts to avoid evidentiary hearings on plea withdrawal motions.

Taylor’s motion clearly established enough to get an evidentiary hearing under Bangert. (¶75). So why didn’t he get one?

State v. Stephen Robert Felix Schurk, 2012AP1501-CR, District 1, 3/5/13; court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Schurk was not entitled to plea withdrawal even though the judge did not specifically inform Schurk that he was not bound by the parties’ plea agreement because the information was conveyed to Schurk in other ways:

¶11      …. [The court’s] colloquy advised Schurk that with regard to certain aspects of the sentencing,

State v. Ryan L. Kohlhoff, 2012AP1144-CR, 2/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Plea withdrawal – information about collateral consequences of plea

Plea colloquy telling Kohlhoff that, if he pled no contest to a misdemeanor crime involving domestic violence, he would “lose [his] right to carry a firearm under federal law” accurately informed Kohlhoff of the collateral consequences of his plea,

Review of court of appeals summary disposition (PDF here: MINERVA LOPEZ ORDER 3 8 13); case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the circuit court err in concluding that it should deny Lopez’s pre-sentencing plea withdrawal motion because plea withdrawal would substantially prejudice the state?

This issue statement is based on the summary disposition issued by the court of appeals and a review of the parties’ court of appeals briefs.

State v. Adam W. Gilmour, 2011AP878-CR, District 2, 6/20/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The trial court’s rejection, as lacking credibility, Gilmour’s claim that his acceptance of a deferred prosecution agreement was coerced by financial considerations (in that he had been unable to afford the costs associated with jury trial) is affirmed:

¶10      On review, we note that while Gilmour testified that he decided to take the DPA because he could not afford the trial retainer,