By: Derek Hawkins//May 30, 2018//
WI Supreme Court
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. DeAnthony K. Muldrow
Case No.: 2018 WI 52
Focus: Due Process Violation
A defendant who enters a guilty plea waives numerous constitutional rights. State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 270, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). Accordingly, “[u]nder the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,[1] a defendant’s lty plea must be” entered in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent fashion. State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, ¶16, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64. This means, inter alia, the circuit court must notify the defendant of any direct consequence of his guilty plea. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755 (1970). A direct consequence of a guilty plea is one that “has a definite, immediate, and largely automatic effect on the range of a defendant’s punishment.” State v. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, ¶16, 232 Wis. 2d 561, 605 N.W.2d 199. We have identified direct consequences of a plea as being those that impose punishment. Id., ¶17.
The legislature has codified this prerequisite, requiring circuit courts to “[a]ddress the defendant personally and determine that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the potential punishment if convicted” before the court accepts a guilty plea. Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(a) (2015-16).2 A defendant who is not accurately informed of the punishment that could result from his guilty plea may be entitled to withdraw that plea. State v. Taylor, 2013 WI 34, ¶32, 347 Wis. 2d 30, 829 N.W.2d 482.
This case presents us with an opportunity to set forth the proper test for determining whether a sanction is “punishment” such that due process requires a defendant be informed of it before entering a plea of guilty. We must first, therefore, determine what that test is. We hold that the intent-effects test is the proper test used to determine whether a sanction is punishment such that due process requires a defendant be informed of it before entering a plea of guilty.
After determining the proper test for whether a sanction is punishment such that due process requires a defendant be informed of it before entering a plea of guilty, we must apply that test to the facts of Muldrow’s case. Applying the intent-effects test, we hold that neither the intent nor effect of lifetime GPS tracking is punitive. Consequently, Muldrow is not entitled to withdraw his plea because the circuit court was not required to inform him that his guilty plea would subject him to lifetime GPS tracking. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed
Concur:
Dissent: