State v. Negrete
2012 WI 92
| Wis. | 2012Background
- Negrete pleaded guilty in 1992 to second-degree sexual assault of a minor and received probation; no plea hearing transcript exists.
- Negrete moved in 2010 to withdraw the plea under Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2), alleging the court failed to personally warn him of immigration consequences.
- Negrete’s affidavit states he does not recall being warned, while the plea questionnaire in the record indicates immigration warnings were provided.
- Circuit court applied Lagundoye’s harmless-error approach to § 971.08(2) and denied an evidentiary hearing.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the denial in an unpublished decision; this court granted review and upheld the appellate decision.
- The issue centers on the pleading requirements under § 971.08(2) when plea hearing transcript is unavailable, and which standard of review applies (Bentley-type) in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What pleading is required to withdraw a plea under § 971.08(2) when no plea transcript exists? | Negrete (plaintiff) contends he satisfied basic pleading elements. | Negrete (defendant) argues he alleged sufficient facts via motion and affidavit. | Negrete failed to allege sufficient, nonconclusory facts to entitlement relief. |
| Is Bentley-type review appropriate for § 971.08(2) motions with unavailable plea transcripts? | Negrete relies on Bentley-type analysis to obtain relief. | State emphasizes harmless-error framework and Bangert-based shifts. | Bentley-type standard applies; Bangert burden-shift not applicable here. |
| Does the motion establish that the court failed to advise of immigration consequences as § 971.08(2) requires? | Motion and affidavit collectively show lack of on-record warning. | Record ambiguities and lack of transcript undermine the claim. | Not sufficiently alleged; the first element not met. |
| Must the movant show a nexus between the plea and deportation to satisfy § 971.08(2) is likely to result in deportation? | Negrete asserts deportation is likely due to the plea. | Bare assertions of possible deportation are insufficient. | Yes, nexus required; Negrete failed to demonstrate a causal link. |
| Does the Plea Questionnaire alone override the need for a live evidentiary hearing where transcripts are missing? | Questionnaire cannot substitute for on-record colloquy. | Questionnaire may aid, but cannot replace required showing. | Plea questionnaire is not enough to foreclose an evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Douangmala, 253 Wis. 2d 173 (Wis. 2002) (offers guidance on § 971.08(2) pleading and relief standards)
- State v. Lagundoye, 268 Wis. 2d 77 (Wis. 2004) (harmless error approach not retroactive to final judgments before Douangmala)
- State v. Chavez, 175 Wis. 2d 366 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993) (plea warnings and immigration consequences context)
- State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303 (Wis. 1996) (standard for challenging pleas where judgment entered after sentencing)
- State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 (Wis. 1986) (burden-shifting framework for plea withdrawals when transcript shows deficiencies)
- State v. Hoppe, 317 Wis. 2d 161 (Wis. 2009) (Bangert-based analysis and limits in absence of transcript)
- State v. Balliette, 336 Wis. 2d 358 (Wis. 2011) (pleading standards and evidentiary hearing considerations)
- Allen v. Gen. Motors Corp., 274 Wis. 2d 568 (Wis. 2004) (Bentley-type framework and factual sufficiency standard)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (warning on immigration consequences and defense counsel standards (federal))