State v. Stuart D. Yates, 2000 WI App 224, 239 Wis.2d 17, 619 N.W.2d 132
For Yates: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the presumptive MR date of § 302.11(1g)(am) 1997-98 is a direct or collateral consequence of a guilty plea.
Holding: A court is required to advise a defendant only of direct consequences — which have definite, immediate, and largely automatic impact on range of punishment — of a plea, ¶¶6-7. Because the presumptive MR statute involves contingent events (defendant’s rehabilitation and discretionary parole commission determinations), it merely exposed Yates to possible, not automatic, further incarceration and is a collateral rather than direct consequence of his plea; the presumptive MR therefore didn’t have to be part of the plea colloquy. ¶¶13-17
