State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182 For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: The defendant’s understanding of the charge must be detailed, in anon-perfunctory manner, on the record of the guilty plea: ¶52 The circuit court did not establish Howell’s understanding of the information it relayed to Howell by… Read more
3. Required knowledge
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265 For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶27 n. 7: This court explained the procedure for read-in charges in Austin v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 727, 183 N.W.2d 56 (1971). When charges are read in during sentencing, the defendant admits… Read more
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265 For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: In order to trigger read-in procedure there must be a sufficient showing of an agreement to read in the offense at issue: ¶28 Nowhere in the transcript of the plea hearing, the transcript… Read more
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182 For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: The court must address the defendant personally and establish his or her understanding of the nature of the charge, and if ptac liability is alleged then that theory must be included in the plea colloquy, ¶¶36-37… Read more
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265 For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶28 n. 8: We do not adopt the court of appeals’ determinations that read-in charges are merely “collateral consequences” of a plea, and that therefore information about read-ins “is not a prerequisite to… Read more
State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: A plea colloquy is not required to caution the defendant that punishment for each of multiple charges could be imposed consecutively, ¶78… Read more
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… Read more
State v. Javier Bedolla, 2006 WI App 154, (AG’s) PFR filed 7/26/06 For Bedolla: Susan E. Alesia Issue: Whether the defendant failed to show likelihood of deportation, so as to entitle him to plea withdrawal under § 971.08(1)(c), where a detainer had already been filed against him in another case which would also subject him to deportation… Read more
