Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Criminal Procedure; Breach of plea agreement; ineffective assistance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 24, 2012//

Criminal Procedure; Breach of plea agreement; ineffective assistance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 24, 2012//

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Breach of plea agreement; ineffective assistance

Where the defendant breached the plea agreement by violating the conditions of his bond, his attorney was not ineffective for failing to object to the State’s not abiding by the agreement.

“Tucker argues that State v. Rivest, 106 Wis. 2d 406, 411-412, 316 N.W.2d 395 (1982), ‘emphasizes the need for judicial approval of the terms of the plea agreement.’ He seems to be suggesting that because the circuit court in the present case did not give some affirmative statement at the hearing acknowledging that Tucker’s compliance with his bail conditions was part of the plea agreement, the court did not approve that condition. However, Rivest does not, as Tucker seems to suggest, require a court to make an explicit statement approving each and every condition of a plea. Rivest discussed generally the standard for setting aside a judicially approved plea agreement and the procedure to be applied when the State seeks to vacate a plea agreement when a defendant has commenced serving his sentence. See id. It did not discuss the appropriate procedure for accepting the terms of an initial plea. “

“In summary, the record supports the circuit court’s finding that all parties to the plea agreement understood Tucker’s continued compliance with his bond conditions to be part of the plea agreement, and not a unilateral amendment to that agreement by the State. Tucker’s trial counsel could not be deficient for failing to raise an objection over the State’s alleged unilateral amendment of the plea agreement when that simply was not the case. Accordingly, we conclude that Tucker has not shown that defense counsel was deficient in failing to raise any objection relating to the issue of whether bond compliance was a part of the plea agreement. “
Affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP752-CR State v. Tuckeer

Dist. IV, Dane County, Shwartz, Ehlke, JJ., Sherman, J.

Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests