On Point blog, page 17 of 19
Plea Agreements — Partial Withdrawal Doesn’t Necessarily Work Repudiation of Entire Bargain
State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113
For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether Nelson’s successful attempt to withdraw three of five bargain-based guilty pleas had the effect of abrogating the entire agreement so as to require withdrawal of the other two pleas.
Holding:
¶23 Finally, Nelson asserts that if he is successful in withdrawing some of his pleas,
Guilty Pleas – Post-Sentencing Plea Withdrawal: Suppression of Material Exculpatory Impeachment Evidence – Statutory Basis
State v. Kevin Harris, 2004 WI 64, affirming as modified 2003 WI App 144, 266 Wis. 2d 200, 667 N.W.2d 813
For Harris: Steven A. Koch
Issue/Holding:
¶34 We recognize that in the constitutional context, the Brady requirement of materiality is dependent upon whether the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial and that no trial took place here.
Guilty Pleas – Post-Sentencing Plea Withdrawal: Procedure, Generally
State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, affirming 2002 WI App 293, 259 Wis. 2d. 455, 655 N.W.2d 131
For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether, in moving to withdraw guilty plea on the basis of failure to inform the defendant that the trial court wasn’t bound by the plea agreement, the defendant need only assert lack of such understanding;
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-Sentencing – Procedure – Proof of Knowledge of Elements / Remedy for Lack of Proof<
State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶16. Jipson’s answers, while incriminating, have no bearing on the focus here. That is, the answers do not establish Jipson knew the State had to prove the purpose of the sexual contact was an element of the crime. The critical inquiry is whether Jipson otherwise knew at the time of entering his plea all of the essential elements of the offense so that it can be said he knowingly pled guilty to the crime.
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-Sentencing – Procedure – Burden of Proof
State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶7. When challenging a guilty or no contest plea, the defendant has the initial burden to produce a prima facie case comprised of the following two parts. First, the defendant must show the trial court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea without conforming to Wis. Stat. § 971.08 or other mandatory procedures.
Guilty Pleas – Post-Sentencing Plea Withdrawal: Suppression of Material Exculpatory Impeachment Evidence – Constitutional Basis
State v. Kevin Harris, 2004 WI 64, affirming as modified 2003 WI App 144, 266 Wis. 2d 200, 667 N.W.2d 813
For Harris: Steven A. Koch
Issue/Holding:
¶16 Therefore, the court of appeals in the instant case misstated the law when it held that “the State violates the Constitution if it withholds the type of information that could form the basis for further investigation by the defense[,]”
Plea Agreements — Partial Withdrawal: Repudiation of Entire Bargain<
State v. Corey D. Williams, 2003 WI App 116
For Williams: Michael J. Edmonds
Issue/Holding:
¶21. As a final matter, we address the effect of Williams’s plea withdrawal on further proceedings in the circuit court. It is well-settled that “repudiation of a portion of the plea agreement constitutes a repudiation of the entire plea agreement.” State v. Lange, 2003 WI App 2,
Plea Agreements — Partial Withdrawal: Repudiation of Entire Bargain
State v. Richard A. Lange, 2003 WI App 2
For Lange: Daniel F. Snyder
Issue/Holding: Partial relief against a plea bargain-based guilty plea “constitutes a repudiation of the entire plea agreement,” ¶32, a principle which is now extended to instances where there are multiple judgments of conviction not all of which are under appeal, under the rationale of State v. Briggs, 218 Wis. 2d 61,
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-sentence – Potential Alibi Witness
State v. Anthony J. Leitner, 2001 WI App 172, affirmed on other grounds, 2002 WI 77
For Leitner: Jim Scott
Issue: Whether the trial court properly denied a presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea.
Holding:
¶27. When a defendant shows a fair and just reason, the trial court should permit the plea withdrawal unless there is substantial prejudice to the prosecution.
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentencing – Procedure – Pleading Requirements
State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2002 WI App 293, affirmed, 2004 WI 107
For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: The pleading requirements for a hearing imposed by State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996) aren’t applicable to a motion for plea-withdrawal based on defective colloquy:
¶20. Hampton responds that Bentley does not apply because the defendant in Bentley sought plea withdrawal based on ineffective assistance of counsel and,