906 N.W.2d 666
Wis.2018Background
- Hendricks was charged with second‑degree sexual assault of a child based on allegations he took a 14‑year‑old to a park and made sexual advances; at trial he accepted a plea to child enticement (Wis. Stat. § 948.07(1)).
- At the plea colloquy the court reviewed a guilty plea questionnaire, summarized the elements of child enticement, read the six statutory modes (including "sexual contact"), and Hendricks repeatedly acknowledged he understood and admitted the conduct.
- Hendricks later moved to withdraw his plea claiming the court failed to define the statutory term "sexual contact," so he did not understand the nature of the charge; he sought an evidentiary hearing under Bangert.
- The circuit court denied relief, holding sexual contact is not an element of child enticement (it is a mode of commission) and the plea record established Hendricks’ understanding; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed: (1) sexual contact is not an essential element of child enticement; (2) the plea colloquy satisfied Wis. Stat. § 971.08 and Bangert; (3) no evidentiary hearing was required; the Court declined to modify Bangert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea colloquy was deficient for failing to define "sexual contact" | State: court need not define terms that are not essential elements; plea adequately identified a mode of commission and factual basis existed | Hendricks: "sexual contact" is an essential element of the charged conduct; court had to define it under § 971.08/Bangert | Held: sexual contact is a mode of commission, not an essential element of child enticement; no deficiency in plea colloquy |
| Whether Bangert requires counsel to reiterate elements on the record (second Bangert method) | State: request to relax Bangert to allow counsel's off‑record assurance (citing Bradshaw v. Stumpf) | Hendricks: Bangert should remain as is to protect plea reliability | Held: Court refused to modify Bangert; the existing on‑record safeguards remain |
| Whether Hendricks was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Bangert | State: initially conceded hearing, but on review argued record shows understanding | Hendricks: alleged he did not understand "sexual contact" and sought hearing | Held: No hearing required; the plea colloquy and other record evidence conclusively show Hendricks understood the nature of the charge |
| Whether precedents about sexual‑contact definitions in sexual‑assault cases control child enticement pleas | Hendricks: cases requiring definition for sexual‑assault convictions compel same here | State: those cases involve different statutes where sexual contact is an element | Held: Cases on sexual assault do not control because child enticement treats sexual contact as one of multiple modes, not an element |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 (1986) (establishes methods a court may use to ensure defendant understands nature/elements of charge at plea)
- State v. Derango, 236 Wis. 2d 721 (2000) (child enticement is a single offense with multiple modes; the act of enticement, coupled with intent, is the crime)
- State v. Bollig, 232 Wis. 2d 561 (2000) (plea colloquy and requirements when sexual‑contact definitions are at issue)
- State v. Jipson, 267 Wis. 2d 467 (2003) (discusses sexual contact as an element in sexual‑assault statute context)
- State v. Nichelson, 220 Wis. 2d 214 (Ct. App. 1998) (addresses sexual contact as element in child sexual‑assault statute)
- State v. Steele, 241 Wis. 2d 269 (2001) (court of appeals decision on plea colloquy and underlying felony/mode issues relied on by parties)
- State v. Hanson, 182 Wis. 2d 481 (Ct. App. 1994) (describes gravamen of child enticement as succeeding in getting a child to enter a place with intent)
- State v. Brown, 293 Wis. 2d 594 (2006) (Bangert/Brown standards for when a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing)
- State v. Howell, 301 Wis. 2d 350 (2007) (review standard for Bangert entitlement to hearing)
- State v. Hampton, 274 Wis. 2d 379 (2004) (defendant entitled to evidentiary hearing when plea colloquy omitted information and defendant alleges he did not understand)