State of Wisconsin v. F.S.-E., 2054AP10, District I, 5/20/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA rejects F.S.-E.’s claim that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his no contest plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. It holds that there is no requirement that the circuit court pause after explaining each right during the plea colloquy to inquire as to F.S.-E.’s understand of that particular right.
The state filed a petition to terminate F.S.-E.’s parental rights to his child, J.K. (¶2). As grounds, the petition asserted abandonment and failure to assume parental responsibility. At the grounds hearing, F.S.-E. entered a no contest plea to abandonment. The circuit court told F.S.-E. that he should let the court know if at any point he did not understand something during the plea, asked questions to determine F.S.-E.’s level of understanding, and explained the rights F.S.-E. was giving up. (¶¶3-4). F.S.-E. confirmed his understanding at every opportunity. (¶¶3-5). Ultimately, F.S.-E.’s rights were terminated.
In a postdisposition motion, and on appeal, F.S.-E.’s only claim was that the circuit court’s colloquy failed to adequately address whether his no contest plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 48.422(3) and (7). (¶¶8, 13). He does not assert that the circuit court failed to meet any of the requirements under sub. (7), rather that “the court did not pause enough when explaining which rights F.S.-E. would be giving up by entering a plea of no contest.” (¶16).
COA analyzes the circuit court’s colloquy, and determines it was sufficient. (¶¶17-21). However, F.S.-E. does not point to any case law or statute that requires the circuit court to pause after explaining each right that he would be giving up. Further, F.S.-E. does not contend that he unknowingly gave up any rights. (¶22). Therefore, COA concludes that F.S.-E. failed to make a prima facie showing that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion. (¶23).
