Plea Withdrawal-Manifest Injustice

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Kiddchosen G. Cvikel

Case No.: 2024AP001339-CR

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

Focus: Plea Withdrawal-Manifest Injustice

Cvikel was convicted of felony murder. He sought to withdrawal a guilty plea based on his submission to the court requesting new counsel. The issue was not addressed before Cvikel entered a guilty plea pursuant to an agreement that dismissed an attempted armed robbery charge. After sentencing, Cvikel argued that the trial court erred by failing to inquire into his request for substitute counsel and that this error justified plea withdrawal.

The Court of Appeals determined that Cvikel forfeited his direct challenge to the trial court’s failure to address his request for new counsel by entering a valid guilty plea, which waived all non-jurisdictional defects. Relying on prior precedent, the court rejected any argument that requests for substitute counsel are exempt from the forfeiture rule.

The court also concluded that Cvikel failed to establish a manifest injustice warranting plea withdrawal after sentencing. Although Cvikel argued that he could not effectively communicate with trial counsel, the postconviction court found his testimony not credible and determined that the record demonstrated adequate communication between attorney and client. During the plea colloquy, Cvikel confirmed that he could communicate with counsel and had reviewed the plea documents with him. Additional testimony showed that counsel met with Cvikel multiple times and discussed defense strategies. Because the record supported the finding that communication was adequate, the court held that Cvikel failed to prove a basis for plea withdrawal.

Affirmed.

Decided 05/27/26

Full Text