On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Court of Appeals rejects challenge to pleas to DV-related charges
State v. Terrance Lavone Egerson, 2016AP1045-CR, District 1, 2/27/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Egerson moved to withdraw his pleas, alleging his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to challenge the domestic abuse repeater enhancers appended to the charges Egerson faced. According to Egerson, those enhancers never applied, so he was overcharged and led to believe his sentencing exposure was greater than it was. The court of appeals holds trial counsel wasn’t deficient because the complaints supported charging them and, in any event, Egerson hasn’t shown prejudice.
Domestic abuse repeater enhancer applies only if state proves or defendant admits prior convictions
State v. Gavin S. Hill, 2016 WI App 29; case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals holds that the standards for alleging and applying the ordinary repeater enhancer under § 939.62 also govern the domestic abuse repeater enhancer under § 939.621. Thus, the state must either prove that the defendant was convicted of the required predicate offenses or the defendant must admit that he was convicted of those offenses.
Enhancer – Pleading – Post-Plea Amendment
State v. Jamale A. Bonds, 2006 WI 83, reversing unpublished decision
For Bonds: Jeremy C. Perri, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether post-plea amendment of the repeater allegation to change its basis prejudiced the defendant hence was improper.
Holding:
¶31 It is the State’s burden to prove that Bonds was not prejudiced and Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1) was satisfied through notice of sufficient allegations of the basis for charging habitual criminality.
Enhancer – Pleading – Generally
State v. Jamale A. Bonds, 2006 WI 83, reversing unpublished decision
For Bonds: Jeremy C. Perri, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶30 When considered together, this precedent establishes the following principles:
(1) The purpose of the allegations of repeater status in a charging document is to provide the defendant with sufficient notice of the potential maximum penalty he faces in order that the defendant may make an informed plea.
Enhancer – Pleading – Misstating Date of Prior Convictions by One Day
State v. Robert J. Stynes, 2003 WI 65, reversing unpublished opinion
For Stynes: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the complaint’s misstatement (by one day) of the date of prior convictions in support of a repeater allegation deprived Stynes of adequate notice, contrary to § 973.12(1) and due process.
Holding:
¶2. We conclude that the complaint provided Stynes with the required notice of the predicate convictions.
Enhancer — Pleading — Untimely Allegation, But Pursuant to Plea Bargain
State v. Joel O. Peterson, 2001 WI App 220, PFR filed 9/21/01
For Peterson: William E. Schmaal
Issue: Whether the charge may be amended to include a repeater allegation, otherwise untimely under § 973.12(1), if accomplished as part of a plea bargain.
Holding:
¶24 … (A)llowing a defendant to agree to amend an information to add repeater allegations as part of an agreement to plead guilty or no contest is consistent with the goal of providing the defendant all the information about the potential punishment at the time he or she pleads guilty or no contest.
Enhancer — Pleading — Charge Made in Information Controls Different Repeater Allegation in Complaint
State v. John J. Thoms, 228 Wis. 2d 868, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Thoms: Steven L. Miller
Issue/Holding: The court reverses a persistent repeater sentence, § 939.62(2m). Thoms was originally charged in the complaint with the standard 10-year sentence enhancement, § 939.62(1)(c)&(2), based on a prior felony theft conviction. However, the information changed the enhancement allegation to persistent offender, § 939.62(2m) – life without parole.