State v. Cain
2012 WI 68
Wis.2012Background
- Cain, a 65-year-old Montello resident, was found by police with 16 marijuana plants in a hidden room in his shop; charge summary included manufacturing more than four but less than twenty plants (Class H felony).
- Plea negotiations led to a plea agreement: Cain pled no contest to Count III (manufacturing) in exchange for dismissal of three other counts.
- At plea, Cain acknowledged some concerns about fairness but the court proceeded to determine the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered; 16 plants were later echoed in the PSI.
- Cain pleaded to manufacturing more than four plants; at sentencing the State's PSI and the prosecutor’s reiteration of the facts supported 16 plants, and Cain received a two-year probationary sentence after a withheld sentence.
- Six months after sentencing, Cain moved for post-conviction relief to withdraw the plea, arguing the court failed to ensure he admitted to the facts necessary to sustain conviction; the circuit court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed.
- This Court affirms, holding the record as a whole does not show manifest injustice warranting withdrawal of the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cain should be allowed to withdraw the plea to correct manifest injustice | Cain contends the plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily due to the plea colloquy error | Cain argues withdrawal is necessary to correct manifest injustice given misstatement of admitted facts | No; record shows Cain personally entered and ratified the plea; no manifest injustice requires withdrawal |
| Whether the review should focus only on the plea hearing or the entire record | Cain argues only plea hearing matters should be reviewed | State/the majority see totality of record as relevant for manifest injustice | Total record review proper in manifest injustice analysis |
| Whether Cain personally entered or ratified the plea | Cain did not personally enter/ratify given alleged discrepancy | Cain admitted to four plants at plea and five plants at sentencing; thus, question is whether he personally entered the plea | Cain personally entered and ratified the plea when considering total record; admission at sentencing supports ratification |
| Whether the State burden shifted to prove knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea given Bangert framework | Cain did not request Bangert evidentiary hearing; burden remains with Cain | State bears burden if Bangert-like issues are raised | Burden remains with Cain since this is not a Bangert motion; clear and convincing evidence required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thomas, 232 Wis.2d 714 (Wis. 2000) (affirmative requirements for knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea and factual basis)
- State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246 (Wis. 1986) (pre-plea rights and full record review to determine understanding)
- White v. State, 85 Wis.2d 485 (Wis. 1978) (whole-record approach to manifest injustice)
- State v. Daley, 292 Wis.2d 517 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (non-exhaustive manifest injustice criteria)
- State v. Burns, 226 Wis.2d 762 (Wis. 1999) (illustrates personal-entry requirement in plea)