Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

2. 809.30, direct appeal

State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41, affirming 2008 WI App 89 For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Notwithstanding “irregularities” with respect to the burden of proof, the hearing on Hoppe’s Bangert challenge established that his plea was knowing and voluntary, given “the circuit court’s findings … that the circuit court… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2008 WI App 89 For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether a plea colloquy that merely established that the defendant was “satisfied” he understood “everything in the questionnaire and waiver of rights and the elements of the charges” sufficed under State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.  2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Dwight Glen Jones, 2007 WI App 248 For Jones: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding:  ¶13   Although an indigent defendant does not have the right to pick his or her trial lawyer, Mulkovich v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 464, 474, 243 N.W.2d 198, 203–204 (1976) (“This court has frequently said that, except in cases of… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182 For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶27      A Bangert Motion. A defendant may invoke Bangert only by alleging that the circuit court failed to fulfill its plea colloquy duties. [16] A Bangert motion warrants an evidentiary hearing if (1) the motion makes “aprima facie showing that [the] plea was accepted without the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265 For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Bangert procedure applies to challenge to failure to establish adequate factual basis where the facts are disputed: ¶50      In the present case, however, the facts are in dispute precisely because the circuit court failed to conduct a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jeremy D. Russ, 2006 WI App 9 For Russ: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: A deaf defendant who had been shackled when he entered a guilty plea and was sentenced must show actual inability to communicate effectively in order to meet his burden of showing a violation of rights. Thus, even… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2006 WI App 182, PFR filed 9/25/06 (reconsideration of previously issued but subsequently withdrawn opinion) For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding1: A conclusory allegation suffices to obtain a hearing on a Bangert claim (involving a defect in the plea colloquy), ¶14; however, more is required for a non-Bangert claim, ¶¶21-29. Nor is there, for… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Timothy J. Goyette, 2006 WI App 178 For Goyette: E.J. Hunt, Kathleen M. Quinn Issue/Holding: ¶17 The purpose of filing a Bangert plea withdrawal motion is to obtain an evidentiary hearing at which the State bears the burden of producing evidence showing that, despite a defective plea colloquy, the defendant’s plea was nonetheless knowing and voluntary. State v… Read More

{ 0 comments }