State v. Mursal, 839 N.W.2d 173

Mursal appeals a judgment convicting him of second-degree sexual assault and kidnapping as party to a crime, and appeals denials of postconviction motions.
He argues he was entitled to plea withdrawal because the immigration warning under Wis. Stat. § 971.08(l)(c) did not quote the statute verbatim, though it substantially complied.
Alternatively, he seeks resentencing alleging the trial court abused its discretion in selecting and explaining the sentence terms.
Following competency evaluations, Mursal pled guilty to three counts of second-degree sexual assault and one count of kidnapping, as party to a crime.
The court imposed a global sentence of 60 years (40 years confinement, 20 years ES) with a mix of consecutive and concurrent components.
Postconviction motions, including plea withdrawal and resentencing challenges, were denied, and the convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea withdrawal was proper under § 971.08(l)(c).	Mursal argues the warning language deviated from the statute and thus invalidated the plea.	Mursal contends the language must be verbatim to comply with the statute.	No; warning substantially complied and was valid.
Whether resentencing was warranted due to an allegedly improper exercise of discretion.	Mursal contends the court failed to tie sentencing factors to the numbers and results, and the sentence was harsh.	The court reasonably exercised discretion; detailed numerical justification is not required.	No; the court properly exercised discretion and sentence was not excessive.

State v. Douangmala, 253 Wis.2d 173 (2002 WI 62) (warning must be substantially compliant with § 971.08; not require verbatim quotation)
State v. Vang, 328 Wis.2d 251 (2010 WI App 118) (deportation warning timing; substantial compliance discussed)
Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis.2d 633 (2004 WI 58) (statutory language, common meaning, contextual interpretation)
Taylor v. State, 289 Wis.2d 34 (2006 WI 22) (no requirement to provide exact numerical breakdown of sentencing factors)
Harris v. State, 326 Wis.2d 685 (2010 WI 79) (sentencing factors include offense gravity, defendant's character, public protection)
Ocanas v. State, 70 Wis.2d 179 (1975) (extreme disparity standard for harshness of sentence)
Giebel v. State, 198 Wis.2d 207 (Ct. App. 1995) (review of sentencing discretion for erroneous exercise)