Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

02-0325-CR State v. Fink

By: dmc-admin//July 30, 2002//

02-0325-CR State v. Fink

By: dmc-admin//July 30, 2002//

Listen to this article

Steven T. Fink appeals from a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Without representation of counsel, Fink pled no contest to a charge of disorderly conduct. Fink argues that the circuit court erred in denying his postconviction motion seeking to withdraw his plea because the circuit court failed, pursuant to State v. Klessig, 211 Wis.2d 194, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997), to advise him of the difficulties and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel.

The circuit court conceded at the postconviction motion hearing, and the State similarly concedes on appeal, that the court failed to expressly address the difficulties and disadvantages of self-representation with Fink.

Because the record otherwise fails to establish that Fink was made aware of these disadvantages, we reverse the judgment and the order denying his postconviction request to withdraw his plea and remand for an evidentiary hearing as required by Klessig.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist II, Winnebago County, Gritton, J., Nettesheim, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Leonard D. Kachinsky, Neenah

For Respondent: John A. Jorgensen, Oshkosh; Doran Edward Viste, Oshkosh

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests