Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Criminal Procedure — plea withdrawal

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 24, 2013//

Criminal Procedure — plea withdrawal

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 24, 2013//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — plea withdrawal — deportation warning

Where the trial court’s deportation warning when accepting guilty plea was substantively identical to the statutory language, but not literally identical, the defendant is not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea.

“In the instant case, the trial court’s WIS. STAT. §971.08(1)(c) warning completely explained each of the elements listed in the statute.  The trial court explained that if Mursal was not a citizen of the United States, his plea might result in deportation, the exclusion from admission to this country or the denial of naturalization under federal law.  Substantively, the trial court’s warning complied perfectly with the statute, and linguistically, the differences were so slight that they did not alter the meaning of the warning in any way.”

“We do acknowledge, of course, that the statutory language is strongly preferred.  As this court has stated and as the supreme court has agreed, ‘WIS. STAT. § 971.08(1)(c) is a clear directive to the circuit courts and … it “not only commands what the court must personally say to the defendant, but the language is bracketed by quotation marks, an unusual and significant legislative signal that the statute should be followed to the letter.”’  State v. Douangmala, 2002 WI 62, ¶21, 253 Wis. 2d 173, 646 N.W.2d 1 (citing State v. Garcia, 2000 WI App 81, ¶16, 234 Wis. 2d 304, 610 N.W.2d 180 (overruled regarding application of harmless error test to WIS. STAT. §971.08 analysis by Douangmala, 253 Wis.2d 173, ¶42)); see also State v. Vang, 2010 WI App 118, ¶15, 328 Wis. 2d 251, 789 N.W.2d 115 (‘we reiterate our caution to circuit courts to recite with precision the statutory admonition’).”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2012AP2775-CR State v. Mursal

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Ashley, Cimple, Brostrom, JJ., Curley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Odrcic, Davorin J., Milwaukee; Marion, Colleen, Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Wren, Christopher G., 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