State v. Lichty
2012 WI App 126
Wis. Ct. App.2012Background
- Lichty faced two burglary charges and a dismissed drug possession charge under a plea agreement for a combined sentence of twelve years, six years confinement and six years ES on each burglary count, to run concurrently.
- At the plea, Lichty understood the maximum penalty was 12.5 years and a $25,000 fine, with a bifurcation of 7.5 years confinement and 5 years ES per count, though the court and State believed the maximum ES was six years.
- The sentencing hearing revealed a good-faith error: the maximum ES for a Class F felony was five years, not six, and the State accordingly reduced its ES recommendation to five years while keeping confinement at six years.
- Lichty was sentenced to eleven years on each count (six years confinement, five years ES) consecutive, despite the initial multi-count, bifurcated plan and the error being corrected at sentencing.
- Lichty moved to withdraw his pleas claiming manifest injustice under Woods and ineffective assistance of counsel; the circuit court denied, applying Bangert and finding no manifest injustice.
- On appeal, the court held that the good-faith misstatement did not undermine knowing, voluntary, and intelligent pleas and that the remedy at sentencing preserved Lichty’s bargain and did not prejudice him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea withdrawal is warranted for manifest injustice due to a good-faith plea misstatement | Lichty argues misstatement invalidated knowingness of pleas | State contends corrections at sentencing cured defect and preserved bargain | No manifest injustice; corrections preserved the bargain |
| Whether correcting the State's ES recommendation at sentencing violated Bangert/971.08 | Procedural flaws undermine knowing/voluntary plea | Correction did not undermine the defendant’s understanding or the plea’s integrity | Correction did not violate Bangert; maximum penalty communicated remained clear |
| Whether Lichty’s counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the ES change | Failure to object breached the plea agreement | Not a material breach; no prejudice shown | No ineffective assistance; not a material breach |
| Whether Woods/Riekkoff apply to require withdrawal due to the bargain being undermined | Legal error undermined inducement and resulting in manifest injustice | Error was minor and benefited Lichty; Woods/Riekkoff not controlling | Woods/Riekkoff do not apply; bargain preserved and improved |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Woods, 173 Wis. 2d 129, 496 N.W.2d 144 (Ct. App. 1992) (withdrawal justified when error undermines fundamental bargain)
- State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986) (plea procedures must be impeccable to avoid manifest injustice)
- State v. Cross, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64 (2010) (misinformation about potential punishment not Bangert violation when favorable to defendant)
- State v. Sutton, 294 Wis. 2d 330, 718 N.W.2d 146 (2006) (define 'potential punishment' for Bangert analysis)
- State v. Liukonen, 276 Wis. 2d 64, 686 N.W.2d 689 (2004) (breach of plea agreement requires material breach; not every breach is material)
- State v. Sprang, 274 Wis. 2d 784, 683 N.W.2d 522 (2004) (material, substantial breach when State insinuates adverse consequences)
- State v. Bowers, 280 Wis.2d 534, 696 N.W.2d 255 (2005) (no material breach where misstatement is not a substantial deviation from bargain)
- State v. Riekkoff, 332 N.W.2d 744 (1983) (withdrawal justified when inducement of appellate review misrepresented)