On Point

State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: On a charge of 2nd-degree sexual assault, § 948.02(2), the guilty plea court must ascertain the defendant’s knowledge of the element of intent, namely that the defendant had sexual contact for the purpose of sexual degradation, humiliation, arousal, or gratification. It is insufficient to advise the defendant merely that “knowing contact” was necessary,

State v. Richard A. Lange, 2003 WI App 2
For Lange: Daniel F. Snyder

Issue/Holding: Where the plea form made reference to an “attached sheet” which was not in fact attached, and the trial court did not go over the elements with the defendant, “the record is barren as to any explanation or detailing to Lange of the elements of the offense,” and Lange has established a prima facie case for plea-withdrawal.

State v. Richard A. Lange, 2003 WI App 2
For Lange: Daniel F. Snyder

Issue/Holding: Trial court’s colloquy sufficiently established defendant’s understanding of rights waived by guilty plea. ¶¶23-27.

State v. Leonard C. Matson, 2003 WI App 253
For Matson: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶13. Matson argues his due process rights were violated when Alstadt, the investigating detective in this case, gave a sentencing recommendation that undermined the State’s recommendation, in effect, breaching the plea agreement. The State counters that Alstadt was not a party to the plea agreement and thus his letter did not violate Matson’s due process rights.

State v. Leonard C. Matson, 2003 WI App 253
For Matson: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶33. Here, as he did before the circuit court, Matson seeks not to withdraw his plea, which is one remedy for a breach of a plea agreement. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 263 (1971). Matson instead seeks specific performance, a new sentencing by a different judge with a new presentence report.

State v. Robert C. Deilke, 2004 WI 104, reversing 2003 WI App 151, 266 Wis. 2d 274, 667 N.W.2d 867
For Deilke: Kelly J. McKnight

Issue: Whether a defendant’s successful challenge to a prior plea-bargain based conviction that is being used as an enhancer in a current proceeding amounts to a breach of that prior plea bargain so as to allow reinstatement of charges dismissed under it.

State v. Hank J. Merten, 2003 WI App 171
For Merten: Dana W. Duncan

Issue/Holding:

¶8. Accordingly, the resolution of this appeal requires us to determine whether the effect of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a)(4), which excludes individuals convicted of a felony related to a controlled substance from participating in federal health care programs, is a direct or a collateral consequence of Merten’s no contest plea.

State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03
For Ross: Andrew Mishlove

Issue/Holding:

¶44. The State charged Gundy as an accomplice to Ross’s criminal activity. Gundy was arrested in Maryland, and brought back to Milwaukee where he was held in custody. Ross contends that pursuant to a plea agreement, Gundy was released from custody, and secured leniency in return for his testimony against Ross.

State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed, 2004 WI 33
For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding:

¶24. Wisconsin Stat. § 906.09 permits the admission of prior convictions for impeachment purposes. (See text of statute at ¶9.) The statute reflects the presumption that “a person who has been convicted of a crime is less likely to be a truthful witness than a person who has not been convicted.” 

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565; habeas denied, Samuel v. Frank, 525 F. 3d 566 (7th Cir 2008)
For Samuel: Robert A. Henak

Issue/Holding:

¶30. With due process as our touchstone, we conclude that when a defendant seeks to suppress witness statements as the product of coercion,