On Point blog, page 6 of 9
Plea-Withdrawal – Newly Discovered Evidence
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity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.
Counsel – Waiver; Plea-Withdrawal – Issuance of Worthless Check – Elements
State v. Kenneth B. Bonner, 2010AP1414-CR, District 1, 12/28/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bonner: Dennis P. Coffey; case activity; Bonner BiC; State Resp.
Counsel – Waiver
The trial court’s waiver colloquy omitted two required components: assurance that the defendant made a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel, and was aware of the difficulties and dangers of self-representation,
Effective Assistance – Plea Advice; Newly Discovered Evidence; Counsel – Sanction
State v. Charles A. Bouc, 2010AP180, District 2, 12/22/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Bouc: Adam Walsh; case activity; Bouc BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Effective Assistance – Plea Advice
Counsel did not fall short of normative performance standards, where he weighed with his client the pros and cons of admissibility of potentially crucial evidence;
Plea-Withdrawal – Hearing – Exculpatory Evidence
State v. William M. O’Donnell, 2009AP2962, District 2, 11/17/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for O’Donnell: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; O’Donnell BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Because the evidence allegedly suppressed by the State wasn’t exculpatory, O’Donnell wasn’t entitled to an evidentiary on his postconviction motion asserting suppression of exculpatory material.
¶10 A circuit court, in its discretion,
Guilty Plea – Withdrawal – Presentence, Undisclosed Exculpatory Evidence, Waiver Rule; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Sentencing
State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2759-CR, District 1, 11/2/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Guilty Plea – Withdrawal – Presentence
The trial court properly applied the “fair and just reason” standard to Harris’s presentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea, ¶¶5-9.
The particular grounds asserted – no factual basis for plea;
Guilty Pleas – Plea-Withdrawal
State v. Ricardo Lopez, 2010 WI App 153 (recommended for publication); for Lopez: Catherine M. Canright; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The plea colloquy was deficient with respect to Lopez’s understanding of the rights waived by his no contest plea, therefore in response to his postconviction motion to withdraw plea the trial court held a hearing at which the State bore the burden of proving his understanding.
Motion to withdraw Plea, Pre-Sentence; Motion to withdraw Plea – Ineffective Assistance
State v. John M. Anthony, 2009AP2171-CR, District 1, 10/13/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.
Motion to withdraw Plea, Pre-Sentence
Based on trial court findings that Anthony decision to plead no contest was based on his attorney’s informed assessment that he was likely to be found guilty if he went to trial, the court of appeals rejects his claim that he was coerced into pleading by counsel’s lack of preparation and holds instead that he failed to establish a “fair and just”
Plea-Withdrawal – Post-Sentencing – Prima Facie Showing: Plea Questionnaire Function
State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41, affirming 2008 WI App 89
For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: A court may incorporate a plea questionnaire form into the guilty plea colloquy, but only up to a point:
¶32 The Plea Questionnaire/Waiver of Rights Form provides a defendant and counsel the opportunity to review together a written statement of the information a defendant should know before entering a guilty plea.
Post-Sentencing Plea-Withdrawal – Grounds: Misapprehension re: Plea Bargain Term (State’s Authority to Argue Facts Underlying Dismissed Charge)
State v. Richard L. Wesley, 2009 WI App 118, PFR filed 8/4/09
For Wesley: Alvin Ugent
Issue/Holding:
¶24 Here, as we said, Wesley claims that he understood the term “dismissed outright” to mean that the State could never use the underlying facts against him. He claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object. He also claims that, if the plea agreement was ambiguous,
Plea-Withdrawal – Post-Sentencing – Bangert Hearing – State Met Burden of Proof
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.