Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Plea-Withdrawal, Post-Sentencing – Procedure – Proof of Knowledge of Elements / Remedy for Lack of Proof<

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 crime. The critical inquiry is whether Jipson otherwise knew at the time of entering his plea all of the essential elements of the offense so that it can be said he knowingly pled guilty to the crime. His testimony does not establish this.

¶17. In conclusion, the State has failed to meet its burden. It has not shown any affirmative evidence that proves clearly and convincingly that Jipson’s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. See Bangert, 131 Wis.2d at 274. Accordingly, Jipson is entitled to withdraw his plea. The circuit court order is reversed and the matter is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

 

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment