01-1448 State v. Randle

Listen to this article

“During the plea colloquy, the trial court specifically addressed Randle about the jurisdiction issue. Randle indicated that he understood he was waiving his right to raise all jurisdictional issues. Moreover, as aptly stated by the trial court:

To reach the conclusion that Randle did not give up his right to challenge the court’s jurisdiction under section 939.03 after entering a guilty or no contest plea would severely impinge upon the rights of the parties to enter into plea negotiations and impede the administration of the court system. The State would be unable to reduce the charges when an unwilling victim was involved. The defendant could never be permitted to enter a plea of guilt to a lesser charge in such a case. The result is absurd.

“Thus, under the circumstances presented in this case, we are compelled to agree with the trial court that by entering his no contest plea in this case, Randle waived his right to challenge jurisdiction under Wis. Stat. § 939.03.”

Judgment and order affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

CONCURRING OPINION: Fine, J., concurring. I agree with the Majority that, as explained in Part II.A. of the Majority opinion, Anthony J. Randle waived his right to challenge the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court over the charge to which he ultimately pled no contest and which is central to this appeal, third-degree sexual assault. …

“I also disassociate myself from the Majority’s apparent agreement with the trial court’s comments quoted in paragraph 16 of the Majority opinion. … He fully deserved to face the full penalty the legislature provided: a maximum penalty of 30 years’ imprisonment, plus a $10,000 fine for the second-degree sexual assault, and an additional 60 years’ imprisonment for the kidnapping.

“But the case was plea-bargained: Randle was allowed to plead no contest to third-degree sexual assault, which, as material here, is defined by Wis. Stat. § 940.225(3) as ‘sexual intercourse with a person without the consent of that person,’ and ‘false imprisonment’ under Wis. Stat. § 940.30. Oh my: beatings, manhandling, forced abduction, humiliation, and force-induced rape all bargained away to grease the skids of what the trial court called the ‘administration of justice.’ To me at least, and, I would bet to Randle’s abused wife and others who have been and will be in her place of terror, what happened here is the administration of injustice. For Randle to challenge the incredible break he received at the hands of the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office and the trial court is nothing less than chutzpah.”

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Sykes, DiMotto, JJ.; Wedemeyer, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Paul G. Bonneson, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; James M. Freimuth, Madison