On Point: D. Plea withdrawal

State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41, affirming 2008 WI App 89
For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Notwithstanding “irregularities” with respect to the burden of proof, the hearing on Hoppe’s Bangert challenge established that his plea was knowing and voluntary, given “the circuit court’s findings … that the circuit court disbelieved the defendant’s claims that he did not receive and did not understand the information that was provided in the Plea Questionnaire/Waiver of Rights Form but that was not provided to the defendant during the plea colloquy,” ¶¶46-58.

State v. Eugene D. Rhodes, 2008 WI App 32, PFR filed 1/15/08
For Rhodes: Joseph E. Redding

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s “forceful” advice that defendant enter a guilty plea wasn’t in and of itself a “fair and just” reason sufficient to require pre-sentencing grant of a motion to withdraw the plea:

¶11      Rhodes proffers his attorney’s “forceful advice” as the coercion present here. We reject such a contention.

State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2008 WI App 89
For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a plea colloquy that merely established that the defendant was “satisfied” he understood “everything in the questionnaire and waiver of rights and the elements of the charges” sufficed under State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.  2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986), given that the questionnaire covered these matters.

State v. Barry M. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96, reversing 2006 WI App 28
For Jenkins: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶31      A “fair and just reason” has never been precisely defined. State v. Shimek, 230 Wis. 2d 730, 739, 601 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1999). Indeed, the fair and just reason standard “lack[s] any pretense of scientific exactness.”

State v. Frederick W. Rushing, 2007 WI App 227, PFR filed 10/25/07
For Rushing: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: “A claim of innocence, of course, is not sufficient as a stand-alone reason to permit a plea withdrawal even before sentencing. State v. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26, ¶23, 289 Wis. 2d 222, 239, 710 N.W.2d 482, 490 (‘An assertion of innocence,

State v. Barry M. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96, reversing 2006 WI App 28
For Jenkins: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether Jenkins’ claim that he (wrongly) thought he would be guaranteed an opportunity to work with law enforcement in return for potential sentencing benefit was a fair and just reason to allow pre-sentencing plea withdrawal.

Holding:

¶71      First,

State v. Frederick W. Rushing, 2007 WI App 227, PFR filed 10/25/07
For Rushing: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Unrefuted indications of the child-complainant’s changed recollection of the details and reluctance to testify, ¶¶8-9, established “substantial prejudice” so as to defeat a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw plea:

¶16      A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea before imposition of sentence must establish a fair and just reason and also “must rebut evidence of substantial prejudice to the State.” State v.

State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶27      A Bangert Motion. A defendant may invoke Bangert only by alleging that the circuit court failed to fulfill its plea colloquy duties. [16] A Bangert motion warrants an evidentiary hearing if (1) the motion makes “aprima facie showing that [the] plea was accepted without the trial court’s conformance with [Wis.

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Bangert procedure applies to challenge to failure to establish adequate factual basis where the facts are disputed:

¶50      In the present case, however, the facts are in dispute precisely because the circuit court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the factual basis of the offense charged.

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, affirming (this holding of) 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶62      Finally, we consider Lackershire’s argument that her plea was involuntary because she feared that the stress of trial would affect her pregnancy. …

…

¶64      Lackershire has raised no plausible argument that her plea was legally coerced.