On Point

State v. Barry M. Jenkins, 2006 WI App 28, overruled on other grounds, 2007 WI 96
For Jenkins: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶31      Our conclusion that Jenkins had a fair and just reason for plea withdrawal does not end our inquiry.  We must consider whether the State would be substantially prejudiced by the plea withdrawal. See id.

State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2006 WI App 182, PFR filed 9/25/06 (reconsideration of previously issued but subsequently withdrawn opinion)

For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding1: A conclusory allegation suffices to obtain a hearing on a Bangert claim (involving a defect in the plea colloquy), ¶14; however, more is required for a non-Bangert claim, ¶¶21-29.

State v. Timothy J. Goyette, 2006 WI App 178
For Goyette: E.J. Hunt, Kathleen M. Quinn

Issue/Holding:

¶17 The purpose of filing a Bangert plea withdrawal motion is to obtain an evidentiary hearing at which the State bears the burden of producing evidence showing that, despite a defective plea colloquy, the defendant’s plea was nonetheless knowing and voluntary. State v.

State v. Donnell Basley, 2006 WI App 253
For Basley: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding1: The postconviction court erroneously denied without evidentiary hearing Basley’s motion for plea-withdrawal (on Nelson/Bentley rather than Bangert grounds):

¶8        Accompanying Basley’s motion is an affidavit from his postconviction counsel averring that the motion “summarizes … Basley’s expected testimony.” Counsel also acknowledges in the affidavit that Basley’s trial counsel will likely dispute that he threatened to withdraw unless Basley accepted the proffered plea bargain.

State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶74      The Bangert and Nelson/Bentley motions, however, are applicable to different factual circumstances. [47] A defendant invokes Bangert when the plea colloquy is defective; a defendant invokes Nelson/Bentley when the defendant alleges that some factor extrinsic to the plea colloquy,

State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: On the particular facts (illiterate defendant, no written questionnaire, perfunctory colloquy) the defendant was entitled to a Bangert hearing on whether the understood the nature of the rights waived by his guilty plea.

With respect to waiver of right to jury trial,

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;

State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06
For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue: Whether the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” in § 942.09 is unconstitutionally vague, where the conduct involved videotaping women in a second-floor bathroom in their own house.

Holding:

¶39      However, this court and the supreme court have already concluded in several different contexts that the term “reasonable” does not render a statute unconstitutionally vague.

State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06
For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding:

¶19      The phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” is not defined in Wis. Stat. § 942.09, nor are the individual words. However, the words “expectation of privacy” have a common meaning that can be ascertained with reference to a standard dictionary.

…¶

21      If we apply the common meanings of “expectation” and “privacy” and the well-established meaning of the term “reasonable,” Wis.

State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06
For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding: The evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under § 942.09 for videotaping into a bathroom notwithstanding that the window was open, under the following circumstances:

¶53      Applying this standard, we conclude the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Nelson guilty of violating Wis.