On Point blog, page 8 of 9
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentence — Procedure: Prima Facie Showing, Relative to Knowledge of Charge – Illiterate Defendant, Perfunctory Colloquy
State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: The defendant demonstrated a prima facie showing that his guilty plea was inadequate, where he was illiterate (such that a plea questionnaire wasn’t even prepared) and the trial court’s colloquy was superficial, ¶¶53-58.
The facts are sufficiently extreme that recurrence is highly unlikely and they therefore won’t be detailed in this summary;
Guilty Pleas – Withdrawal of Plea — Post-sentencing — Coercion – Grounds: “Package” Agreement, Youthfulness of Defendant
State v. Timothy J. Goyette, 2006 WI App 178
For Goyette: E.J. Hunt, Kathleen M. Quinn
Issue: Whether Goyette was coerced into pleading guilty under a “package” agreement (one “contingent on two or more codefendants all entering pleas according to the terms of the agreement”), given the seriousness of the charges and the youthfulness (age 16) of the defendant.
Holding: In the absence of any evidence that Goyette was too young to understand the implications or that he was pressured by his attorney or unable to meet alone with him,
Deferred Prosecution Agreement (Domestic Abuse), § 971.37 – Post-Revocation Withdrawal Comes within Test for Post-Sentencing Motion
State v. Sean M. Daley, 2006 WI App 81, on remand, PFR filed 5/10/06; prior history: 2005 WI App 260, decision vacated and remanded, 2006 WI 25
For Daley: Kirk B. Obear
Issue/Holding: Motion for plea-withdrawal following revocation of a deferred prosecution agreement but before sentencing has been imposed is gauged by the manifest injustice test for post-sentencing plea withdrawal,
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentencing — Procedure — Pleading Requirements for Evidentiary Hearing on Bangert Motion Relative to Nature of Charge
State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶59 To earn a Bangert evidentiary hearing, a defendant must satisfy a second obligation. In addition to making a prima facie case that the circuit court erred in the plea colloquy, a defendant must allege he did not enter a knowing,
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentencing – Procedure – Pleading Requirements – Sexual Assault
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2005 WI App 265, reversed, 2007 WI 74
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether Lackershire, an adult female convicted of sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, established a prima facie case for plea-withdrawal due to lack of adequate understanding of the elements.
Holding:
¶8 Initially, we note that in a plea withdrawal motion like Lackershire’s,
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[,]”