Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-2584 State v. Lange

By: dmc-admin//December 23, 2002//

01-2584 State v. Lange

By: dmc-admin//December 23, 2002//

Listen to this article

“While there is some suggestion in the record that Lange may have been advised of the elements of the offense and the nature of the rights he was waiving prior to the plea hearing, there is no documentation to that effect and there is no indication of Lange’s understanding of the elements of the offense. We therefore agree with Lange that the plea colloquy was inadequate. …

“First, the trial court may summarize the elements of the crime charged by reading from the appropriate jury instructions, or from the applicable statute. Second, the trial judge may ask defendant’s counsel whether he explained the nature of the charge to the defendant and request him to summarize the extent of the explanation, including a reiteration of the elements, at the plea hearing. Third, the trial judge may expressly refer to the record or other evidence of defendant’s knowledge of the nature of the charge established prior to the plea hearing. …

“The ‘Understandings’ section of the Waiver of Rights Form provides, ‘I understand the crime(s) to which I am pleading has/have elements that the State would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if I had a trial. These elements have been explained to me by my attorney or as follows.’ Lange’s signature is in the space provided and a box indicating ‘See Attached Sheet’ is checked. However, there is no ‘attached sheet’ and neither the transcript of the plea hearing nor any other portion of the record reveals any reference to the specific elements of the offense. Thus, the record is barren as to any explanation or detailing to Lange of the elements of the offense.”

However, we reject defendant’s contention that the colloquy failed to advise him of his constitutional rights.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Dist II, Fond du Lac County, Buslee, J., Nettesheim, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Richard A. Lange, Fox Lake; Daniel F. Snyder, Park Falls

For Respondent: Thomas L. Storm, Fond du Lac; Kathleen M. Ptacek, Madison

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