State v. Myron C. Dillard, 358 Wis. 2d 543

Myron C. Dillard was convicted of armed robbery by a no-contest plea with a 25-year initial confinement and 15-year ES; sentencing followed a negotiated plea.
The State attached a persistent repeater enhancer to the armed robbery charge, creating a claimed mandatory life sentence; it later became clear Dillard did not meet persistent repeater criteria.
All parties, from initial appearance through sentencing, advised that the persistent repeater enhancer applied; this misinformation affected the plea decisions.
The State offered to drop the persistent repeater enhancer and the false imprisonment count; the defense, including trial counsel, emphasized the impact of dropping the enhancer on the plea value.
Dillard moved to withdraw his plea post-sentencing; the circuit court denied; the court of appeals reversed, remanding for withdrawal; the Supreme Court reviews these rulings and addresses ineffective assistance as well.
The majority remands to allow withdrawal of the no-contest plea for both lack of knowing/voluntary entry and ineffective assistance of counsel; the dissent would affirm the circuit court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered under totality of circumstances	Dillard argues misinformation about the persistent repeater rendered the plea involuntary	State contends the plea was knowingly entered despite some misapplication of the law	Plea not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary; remand for withdrawal
Whether trial counsel’s ineffective assistance mandates withdrawal of the plea	Dillard asserts counsel failed to challenge the legal impossibility of the enhancer	State argues no prejudice shown; plea value remained substantial	Ineffective assistance established; remand for withdrawal

State v. Denk, 315 Wis. 2d 5 (2008 WI) (charging error; illusory benefit not controlling where no factual/legal impossibility for charged count)
State v. Cross, 326 Wis. 2d 492 (2010 WI) (misinformation about penalties prior to plea; Bangert analysis not applicable here)
State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303 (1996 WI) (burden on defendant in postconviction plea withdrawal; manifest injustice standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Carter, 324 Wis. 2d 640 (2010 WI) (investigation/knowledge standard for counsel under Strickland)
State v. Domke, 337 Wis. 2d 268 (2011 WI) (counsel's duty to investigate relevant law; effect on plea withdrawal)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice showing in guilty pleas; standard for reasonable probability)