State v. Javien Cajujuan Pegeese, 2017AP741-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 1/15/19; affirmed 5/31/19; case activity (including briefs)
Issue:
Whether the circuit court’s failure to personally insure that the defendant understood each constitutional right waived by his guilty plea entitled him to a Bangert evidentiary hearing to determine whether his plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
The circuit court asked Pegeese whether he signed and understood a plea questionnaire form and whether he understood the constitutional rights he was giving up by pleading guilty. The court also asked defense counsel whether Pegeese understood the form. But the court did not inform Pegeese of each of the constitutional rights waived by a guilty plea, and it did not insure that Pegeese understood that by entering a guilty plea he was giving up those rights.
Pegeese asks SCOW to establish a clear rule that the circuit court must take these steps. He also asks for the corollary rule that the circuit court’s reference to a plea questionnaire waiver of rights form may not defeat a defendant’s prima facie showing of a colloquy defect under Bangert. He notes that while State v. Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶35, 293 Wis. 2d 594, 617, 716 N.W.2d 906, 917 and State v. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41, ¶¶31-32, 317 Wis. 2d 161, 179–80, 765 N.W.2d 794, 803 arguably already impose these rules, the court of appeals has been inconsistent in its application of them.
OMG… I hope the answer is no. Not for this particular defendant, but for the rest of ours: judges need to feel confident that we are taking the time to fully advise our clients of their rights. If the client wants to withdraw a plea for ineffective assistance, that is one thing, but that doesnt seem to be what is alleged here. Plea colloquys are already sooooo painful. Why are we even filling out plea paperwork if the Court has to go over every single detail with the defendant as well?