State v. Andre M. Chamblis
2015 WI 53
Wis.2015Background
- Andre Chamblis was charged with OWI/PAC with prior convictions alleged to enhance penalty; State alleged five Minnesota priors and two Illinois priors.
- The circuit court found the Illinois documentation insufficient at a September 12 hearing but said it would consider additional proof if supplied.
- At the September 19 plea hearing the State proffered new Illinois evidence but the court refused it as "too late," and accepted Chamblis's guilty plea to operating with a PAC as a sixth offense.
- The circuit court sentenced Chamblis to 2 years confinement and 2 years extended supervision (four years total).
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding the excluded evidence should have been admitted and that the record supported counting an Illinois conviction, and remanded to enter judgment and resentence for a seventh-offense PAC.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review, assumed exclusion was error, but held the court of appeals' remedy violated due process because Chamblis knowingly pleaded to a sixth offense and could not constitutionally be exposed to the greater penalty of a seventh offense without a knowing plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by excluding the State's late proffer of evidence to establish an additional prior conviction | State: priors need only be proved at sentencing; exclusion was erroneous under McAllister/Wideman | Chamblis: court must determine priors before accepting plea so plea is knowing | Court assumed exclusion was error but did not decide it definitively; recognized better practice is to resolve disputed priors before accepting plea |
| Whether remanding to amend conviction and resentence for a greater offense violates due process | State: remand valid because Chamblis knew a seventh-offense sentence was possible and State was appealing evidentiary ruling | Chamblis: remedy renders plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary because he pleaded to a sixth-offense range | Held for Chamblis: court of appeals' remedy violated due process; plea was knowingly to sixth offense and cannot be converted to a seventh without invalidating the plea |
| Whether forcing plea withdrawal is the appropriate remedy when a plea's direct consequences are misstated | State: defendant should be required to withdraw plea so correct sentence can be imposed | Chamblis: withdrawal is fundamentally unfair and deprives him of plea bargain benefits; he does not seek withdrawal | Held: requiring withdrawal would be fundamentally unfair and violative of due process under these facts; not an appropriate remedy |
| Whether circuit court should have informed defendant of all potential ranges when priors disputed | State: court could advise of alternate ranges and accept plea | Chamblis: defendant must understand direct consequences; court should resolve priors first | Held: court emphasized better practice is to resolve disputed priors before accepting plea to ensure plea is knowing; but did not adopt absolute rule mandating resolution in all cases |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McAllister, 107 Wis. 2d 532 (1982) (prior OWI offenses relate to sentencing enhancement, not elements of the offense)
- State v. Wideman, 206 Wis. 2d 91 (1996) (discusses timing and proof of prior offenses for OWI enhancements)
- State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 (1986) (procedural protections and burden-shifting for claims that a plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)