Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

b. Evidentiary hearing

State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: The defendant demonstrated a prima facie showing that his guilty plea was inadequate, where he was illiterate (such that a plea questionnaire wasn’t even prepared) and the trial court’s colloquy was superficial, ¶¶53-58. The facts are sufficiently extreme… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶59      To earn a Bangert evidentiary hearing, a defendant must satisfy a second obligation. In addition to making a prima facie case that the circuit court erred in the plea colloquy, a defendant must allege he did not enter… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195 For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶11      A circuit court acts within its discretion in denying without a Machnerhearing a postconviction motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel when: (1) the defendant has failed to allege sufficient facts in the motion to raise a question… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2005 WI App 265, reversed, 2007 WI 74 For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether Lackershire, an adult female convicted of sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, established a prima facie case for plea-withdrawal due to lack of adequate understanding of the elements. Holding: ¶8        Initially, we note that in… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. John Allen, 2004 WI 106, affirming unpublished decision For Allen: Michael J. Backes Issue/Holding: ¶14 A hearing on a postconviction motion is required only when the movant states sufficient material facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief. …¶15 It has been said repeatedly that a postconviction motion for relief requires more than… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222 For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶16. Jipson’s answers, while incriminating, have no bearing on the focus here. That is, the answers do not establish Jipson knew the State had to prove the purpose of the sexual contact was an element of the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222 For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶7. When challenging a guilty or no contest plea, the defendant has the initial burden to produce a prima facie case comprised of the following two parts. First, the defendant must show the trial court accepted the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2002 WI App 293, affirmed, 2004 WI 107 For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: The pleading requirements for a hearing imposed by State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996) aren’t applicable to a motion for plea-withdrawal based on defective colloquy: ¶20. Hampton responds… Read More

{ 0 comments }