Right to Remain Silent-Plea Withdrawal

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Dariaz Louis Higgins

Case No.: 2022AP001142-CR

Officials: Donald, P.J., Geenen and Colón, JJ.

Focus: Right to Remain Silent-Plea Withdrawal

Higgins appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of first-degree intentional homicide and one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide, and an order of the circuit court denying his postconviction motion for plea withdrawal, without a hearing.

On appeal, Higgins raises two main arguments that the circuit court (1) erroneously denied his motion to suppress and (2) erroneously denied his postconviction motion for plea withdrawal, without a hearing. Regarding his motion to suppress, Higgins argues that the statements that he made to detectives in the days following his arrest were taken without the proper Miranda warnings and in disregard of his invocation of his right to remain silent. As to his postconviction motion for plea withdrawal, Higgins argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel related to his decision to plead guilty and that trial counsel failed to properly inform him of the elements of the crimes to which he pled guilty.

Motion to Suppress: Higgins argued that his statements to detectives were taken without proper Miranda warnings and after invoking his right to remain silent. The court determined that the initial questioning focused on locating Higgins’ missing daughter, not the crimes charged. His incriminating statements regarding the shootings were made voluntarily and without direct questioning on these topics. The court found that proper Miranda warnings were given when the conversation shifted to the shootings, and Higgins’ right to remain silent was respected, as questioning ceased whenever he indicated a desire to stop talking.

Plea Withdrawal: Higgins claimed ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his guilty plea, particularly that he was not informed of the crime elements. However, the record showed that the plea colloquy and questionnaire confirmed his understanding of these elements. The court judged Higgins’ allegations as conclusory and insufficient to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient or that it prejudiced his case.

Affirmed.

Decided 04/16/24

Full Text