On Point: 3. Before sentencing

State v. Carl A. Reed, 2013 WI App 132; case activity

Reed pled no contest to substantial battery in exchange for the State’s agreement to dismiss 3 other counts and to refrain from making a sentencing recommendation.  The State also received the right to withdraw from the agreement if  Reed “commits any new or additional crimes.”  Reed was later charged with new crimes.  So, the State presented a recommendation at sentencing.

Review of court of appeals summary disposition (PDF here: MINERVA LOPEZ ORDER 3 8 13); case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the circuit court err in concluding that it should deny Lopez’s pre-sentencing plea withdrawal motion because plea withdrawal would substantially prejudice the state?

This issue statement is based on the summary disposition issued by the court of appeals and a review of the parties’ court of appeals briefs.

State v. Dennis C. Strong, Jr., 2012AP1204-CR, District 3, 11/30/12

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

The trial court undertook an appropriate colloquy with Strong before allowing him to waive counsel and represent himself, leading to guilty pleas. The court thus rejects his claim that his pleas were premised on a violation of his right to counsel, ¶12.

Strong had an apparent change of heart after entering guilty pleas: he turned around and made a request for representation,

State v. Travis J. Guttu, 2012AP129-CR, District 3/4, 11/28/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

After entering guilty pleas to multiple counts, Guttu unsuccessfully sought presentencing plea-withdrawal. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw the pleas on different grounds, more particularly: counsel was ineffective for failing to assert Guttu’s lack of knowledge that his plea to one of the counts (sexual assault) subjected him to potential SVP commitment under ch.

State v. Matthew J. Laughrin, 2011AP1600-CR, District 1, 6/12/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Laughrin, after pleading guilty to second-degree reckless homicide for providing a controlled substance (Suboxone) to someone who died after ingesting it, sought pre-sentencing plea-withdrawal on the basis of an expert’s report that Suboxone alone generally doesn’t cause death. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals now affirms.

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;

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”

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. 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,