Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

2. 809.30, direct appeal

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 }

State v. Donnell Basley, 2006 WI App 253 For Basley: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding1: The postconviction court erroneously denied without evidentiary hearing Basley’s motion for plea-withdrawal (on Nelson/Bentley rather than Bangert grounds): ¶8        Accompanying Basley’s motion is an affidavit from his postconviction counsel averring that the motion “summarizes … Basley’s expected testimony.” Counsel also acknowledges in the… 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: ¶74      The Bangert and Nelson/Bentley motions, however, are applicable to different factual circumstances. [47] A defendant invokes Bangert when the plea colloquy is defective; a defendant invokes Nelson/Bentley when the defendant alleges that some factor extrinsic to the plea colloquy, like ineffective assistance of counsel or coercion… 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: On the particular facts (illiterate defendant, no written questionnaire, perfunctory colloquy) the defendant was entitled to a Bangert hearing on whether the understood the nature of the rights waived by his guilty plea. With respect to waiver of right to… 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: 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 }

Sealed File

State v. John Doe, 2005 WI App 68 For John Doe: Amelia L. Bizzaro (the court file has been ordered sealed, and the caption amended “to shield the defendant’s identity”) Issue/Holding: ¶11. We next address the defendant’s allegation that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied his request to file his sentence modification… Read More

{ 0 comments }