State v. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96

736 N.W.2d 24 (2007) · Supreme Court of Wisconsin · July 12, 2007 · No. 2005AP302-CR

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the denial of Barry M. Jenkins's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court held that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion because the record supported its determination that Jenkins understood the plea's consequences and had no guaranteed opportunity to cooperate with law enforcement. The court reversed the court of appeals.

Holdings

  1. Before sentencing, a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution would be substantially prejudiced, but presentence withdrawal is not an absolute right and remains within the circuit court's discretion.
  2. The denial of a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed for an erroneous exercise of discretion; the reviewing court must uphold the decision if the circuit court examined the relevant facts, applied the proper law, and reached a rational conclusion supported by the record.
  3. Jenkins did not establish a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea because the record supported the circuit court's finding that he understood the plea agreement and merely had an unfulfilled hope of obtaining additional sentencing consideration through cooperation with law enforcement.
  4. A defendant need not assert innocence to establish a fair and just reason for presentence plea withdrawal, although an assertion of innocence may bear on the credibility of an asserted misunderstanding, confusion, or coercion.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Jenkins established a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing based on an alleged misunderstanding that he would be guaranteed an opportunity to cooperate with law enforcement and potentially receive sentencing benefits.
  2. What standard governs appellate review of a circuit court's denial of a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
  3. Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by focusing on whether the cooperation arrangement was part of the plea agreement rather than on whether Jenkins misunderstood the consequences of his plea.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (19)

  • State v. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, 232 Wis. 2d 561, 605 N.W.2d 199(followed)
  • State v. Canedy, 161 Wis. 2d 565, 469 N.W.2d 163 (1991)(followed)
  • State v. Garcia, 192 Wis. 2d 845, 532 N.W.2d 111 (1995)(followed)
  • State v. Kivioja, 225 Wis. 2d 271, 592 N.W.2d 220 (1999)(followed)
  • State v. Libke, 60 Wis. 2d 121, 208 N.W.2d 331 (1973)(followed)
  • State v. Dudrey, 74 Wis. 2d 480, 247 N.W.2d 105 (1976)(followed)
  • State v. Shanks, 152 Wis. 2d 284, 448 N.W.2d 264 (Ct. App. 1989)(followed)
  • State v. Shimek, 230 Wis. 2d 730, 601 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1999)(followed)
  • State v. Manke, 230 Wis. 2d 421, 602 N.W.2d 139 (Ct. App. 1999)(followed)
  • State v. Reppin, 35 Wis. 2d 377, 151 N.W.2d 9 (1967)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Wisconsin Supreme Court