On Point: D. Plea withdrawal

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State v. Lee Roy Cain, 2012 WI 68, affirming unpublished decision; case activity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the burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of a “manifest injustice,” the plea should be withdrawn as a matter of right: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.

State v. Matthew J. Laughrin, 2011AP1600-CR, District 1, 6/12/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Laughrin, after pleading guilty to second-degree reckless homicide for providing a controlled substance (Suboxone) to someone who died after ingesting it, sought pre-sentencing plea-withdrawal on the basis of an expert’s report that Suboxone alone generally doesn’t cause death. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals now affirms.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity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

on review of unpublished decision; for Cain: Faun M. Moses, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post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

State v. Lee Roy Cain, 2010AP1599-CR, District 4, 8/11/11, affirmed, 2012 WI 68

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), affirmed, 2012 WI 68; case activity

If, during a (non-Alford) guilty plea colloquy, the defendant denies the existence of an element of the charged the offense, the court must refuse to accept the plea:

¶28      However,

State v. John D. Tiggs, Jr., 2010AP1530, District 2, 6/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

Tiggs knew that DNA test results would be released in mere hours, yet chose to enter his no-contest plea. His postconviction motion to withdraw the plea, based on a theory that the test results amount to newly discovered evidence, fails to satisfy the requirements that the evidence was discovered after conviction and that the defendant wasn’t negligent in seeking the evidence. 

State v. Yancy D. Freland, 2011 WI App 80 (recommended for publication); for Freland: Michael D. Zell; case activity

Conviction for an out-of-state sex offense comparable to a misdemeanor in Wisconsin will be treated as a misdemeanor for sex offender registration purposes, § 301.45(6).

¶12      Wisconsin Stat. § 301.45(1d)(am)1. specifically defines has been “[f]ound to have committed a sex offense by another jurisdiction” to include a person who has been convicted “for a violation of a law of another state that is comparable to a sex offense.”[7] Taken as a whole,

State v. Robert S. Powless, 2010AP1116-CR, District 3/4, 2/24/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Powless: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

At an evidentiary hearing on a “Hampton” violation (failure to assure defendant knows the judge isn’t bound by the plea agreement), the State satisfied its burden of proving that Powless in fact knew the judge could exceed the State’s sentencing recommendation.

¶37      Our conclusion is based on the following.