Summary
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether a defendant's statutory right to be present in the same courtroom as the presiding judge was violated when a guilty-plea hearing was conducted by videoconference. The court held that Wis. Stat. § 971.04(1)(g) provides that right when the plea is accepted and judgment is pronounced, but that the right may be waived. Because Soto expressly consented to videoconferencing after being questioned about it, the court affirmed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Holdings
- Section 971.04(1)(g) applies when a plea hearing includes the court's acceptance of the plea and pronouncement of judgment.
- A criminal defendant has a statutory right to be physically located in a courtroom and, when judgment is pronounced during a plea hearing, ordinarily has a right to be in the same courtroom as the presiding judge.
- The statutory right to be in the same courtroom as the presiding judge during proceedings covered by section 971.04(1)(g) may be waived, but it may not be forfeited by mere inaction or absence.
- Soto knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his statutory right to be in the same courtroom as Judge Lister by expressly consenting to the use of videoconferencing.
- Soto was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because the videoconferenced plea hearing did not violate his statutory right to be present after he knowingly and voluntarily waived that right.
Questions Presented
- Whether Wisconsin Statute section 971.04(1)(g) gives a defendant a statutory right to be in the same courtroom as the presiding judge during a plea hearing at which the court accepts the plea and pronounces judgment.
- Whether that statutory right may be waived through knowing, intelligent, and voluntary consent to videoconferencing.
- Whether Soto waived the statutory right under the circumstances of his plea hearing.
- Whether Soto was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea to correct a manifest injustice.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (19)
- State v. McCallum, 208 Wis. 2d 463, 561 N.W.2d 707 (1997)(followed)
- Rasmussen v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2011 WI 52, 335 Wis. 2d 1, 803 N.W.2d 623(followed)
- State v. Ward, 2009 WI 60, 318 Wis. 2d 301, 767 N.W.2d 236(followed)
- Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581(followed)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110(followed)
- State v. Jensen, 2010 WI 38, 324 Wis. 2d 586, 782 N.W.2d 415(followed)
- Sheboygan County Department of Health & Human Services v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55, 325 Wis. 2d 524, 785 N.W.2d 369(followed)
- DeHart v. Wis. Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 WI 91, 302 Wis. 2d 564, 734 N.W.2d 394(followed)
- State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, 253 Wis. 2d 38, 644 N.W.2d 891(followed)
- Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965)(quoted_or_referenced)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…