On Point: 4. After sentencing

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court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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

State v. Mitchell F. Graf, 2012AP1356-CR, District 3, 1/8/13

Court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects Graf’s plea withdrawal claim, holding: 1)  Graf was not affirmatively misled to believe that by pleading to the offenses he would be able to keep his job because he understood that the circuit court was not bound by any plea agreement and could have sentenced him to imprisonment,

State v. Alvin C. Harris, 2012AP518-CR, District 2, 9/12/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Plea-Withdrawal 

Harris failed to make a prima facie showing that his plea colloquy was defective, therefore his motion to withdraw plea was properly denied without an evidentiary hearing:

¶7        Here, Harris’s motion alleged that his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because of a defect in the plea colloquy.  

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.

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,