Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Criminal Procedure — plea withdrawal — maximum penalties

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 23, 2013//

Criminal Procedure — plea withdrawal — maximum penalties

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 23, 2013//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — plea withdrawal — maximum penalties

A defendant’s guilty plea was intelligently entered, even though the court failed to inform him during the plea colloquy of the maximum sentence.

“To conclude that Taylor was not aware of the maximum eight-year term of imprisonment, we would have to assume that Taylor’s trial counsel misrepresented, on the plea questionnaire form itself and to the court, that he had read the form with Taylor and that Taylor understood it. We would also have to assume that Taylor misrepresented to the court that he had received, read, and understood the complaint and plea questionnaire form. ‘[I]f a defendant does understand the charge and the effects of his plea, he should not be permitted to game the system by taking advantage of judicial mistakes.’ Brown, 293 Wis. 2d 594, ¶37. ‘We do not embrace a formalistic application of the Bangert requirements that would result in the abjuring of a defendant’s representations in open court for insubstantial defects.’ Cross, 326 Wis. 2d 492, ¶32. The failure to specifically reference the two-year repeater penalty enhancer at the plea hearing is, on review of this record, an ‘insubstantial defect’ such that an evidentiary hearing is not required to determine if Taylor entered his plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. A Bangert violation occurs, and a hearing is required, when the plea is not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. No such hearing is required here because this record reflects that Taylor indeed pled knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. He knew of the eight-year maximum term of imprisonment, and in any event, he was verbally informed by the court at the plea hearing of the sentence that he actually received.”

Affirmed.

2011AP1030-CR State v. Taylor

Ziegler, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Hinkel, Andrew, Madison; For Respondent: Balistreri, Thomas J., Madison; Schneider, Carrie A., Appleton

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