State v. Patrick K. Tourville, 876 N.W.2d 735

Background

Tourville faced 17 counts across four consolidated cases and entered a global plea: guilty/no-contest to selected counts (including felony theft as a party to a crime) with other counts dismissed and read in.
A signed plea addendum stated the joint sentencing plan: order a PSI and the State would "cap its recommendation at the high end of what the PSI orders." The PSI gave ranges for each count but was silent on concurrent vs. consecutive sentences.
At sentencing the prosecutor sought the high end of each PSI range and additionally recommended that all sentences run consecutively. Trial counsel did not object; he later testified he "slipped" and had no strategy for not objecting.
Tourville pled guilty to felony theft as a party to the crime based on facts that he drove the thieves to his campsite, helped open the stolen gun safe, directed disposal of the safe, and was paid afterward.
Tourville received consecutive sentences totaling 26 years (14.5 years initial confinement + 11.5 years extended supervision) and moved post‑conviction to withdraw the plea or obtain relief, claiming: (1) ineffective assistance for failure to object to the State’s consecutive-sentence recommendation (arguing breach of plea agreement), and (2) insufficient factual basis for the party-to-the-crime theft plea.
The circuit court, court of appeals, and Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed: no breach of the plea agreement occurred, counsel was not ineffective, and there was a sufficient factual basis for the party-to-the-crime theft plea.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the State breach the plea agreement by recommending consecutive sentences?	State: no breach where plea and PSI were silent on concurrency; prosecutor may recommend consecutive time.	Tourville: State exceeded the plea "cap" by recommending consecutive sentences beyond the PSI high end.	No breach. When agreement is silent about concurrency, prosecutor may recommend consecutive sentences; Bowers controls.
Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the State's consecutive-sentence recommendation?	State: no deficient performance because no breach occurred.	Tourville: counsel was ineffective for not objecting; prejudice follows because plea benefit was deprived.	No ineffective assistance — counsel’s omission was not prejudicial because there was no breach.
Was there a sufficient factual basis for Tourville’s guilty plea to felony theft as a party to the crime?	State: facts (transporting thieves, helping open safe, directing disposal, payment) show aiding and abetting and asportation.	Tourville: he did not "take and carry away" property; he only provided a place and assistance, so elements not met.	Sufficient factual basis. Aiding and abetting/asportation doctrine supports party liability.
What remedy is appropriate if a plea agreement is breached?	State: (alternative) dispute on scope of plea terms; requests remand for factual findings if breach found.	Tourville: seeks resentencing (not plea withdrawal) if breach found.	Court describes remedies (vacatur of plea or resentencing) but no breach found, so no remedy ordered.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Williams, 249 Wis. 2d 492 (Wis. 2002) (enforcement of negotiated plea agreements and remedy for material breach)
State v. Bowers, 280 Wis. 2d 534 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005) (where plea is silent on concurrency, prosecutor may recommend consecutive sentences)
State v. Zanelli, 212 Wis. 2d 358 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997) (silence in plea agreement means defendant did not bargain for government restraint)
State v. Grady, 93 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979) (asportation and contribution to taking can establish larceny liability)
State v. Marshall, 92 Wis. 2d 101 (Wis. 1979) (aiding and abetting requires only willing participation; presence not required)
State v. Jenkins, 355 Wis. 2d 180 (Wis. 2014) (standard of review for ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Lackershire, 301 Wis. 2d 418 (Wis. 2007) (court must ensure factual basis so plea is knowing and voluntary)