State v. Stewart, 916 N.W.2d 188

Stewart pled guilty in an earlier child-support case and, in his PSI, provided purported diplomas from two universities and a VA letter upgrading his military discharge.
The documents were later discovered to be forged; Stewart admitted he fabricated the documents and lied to the PSI writer to try to obtain a better sentencing outcome.
The State charged Stewart with, among other counts, two felony identity-theft counts under WIS. STAT. § 943.203(2) for using entities' identifying documents without authorization and representing he had authorization.
Stewart negotiated a global plea in the 2014 cases, pleading guilty to eleven counts including the two identity-theft counts; he was sentenced to a multi-year term.
Stewart moved postconviction to withdraw his guilty pleas to the identity-theft counts asserting manifest injustice because there was no factual basis: he argued he never expressly represented he had the entities’ authorization and that his use did not seek anything of commercial value or benefit.
The trial court denied relief; the court of appeals affirmed the convictions but ordered an amendment converting child-support arrears from "restitution" to a statutory support order per the State's stipulation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stewart)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether plea withdrawal is required for lack of factual basis (manifest injustice)	No factual basis: Stewart did not expressly represent he had entities' authorization and did not seek "value or benefit" as required by § 943.203(2)	A factual basis exists from the totality of the record (plea, PSI, sentencing, admissions) supporting the identity-theft elements	Denied: no manifest injustice; plea supported by record
Whether presenting forged diplomas/VA letter constitutes a representation of acting with the entities’ authorization	Stewart: he never expressly said he had permission, so statute's authorization/consent element is unmet	State: presenting forged official documents implies authenticity and therefore implicitly represents authorization/consent	Held: implicit representation suffices; no express verbal confirmation required
Whether the use of the documents was “to obtain ... anything else of value or benefit”	Stewart: phrase should be limited to commercial/financial benefits; a better sentence is not the type of value contemplated	State: "anything else of value or benefit" is broad; non‑commercial benefits (e.g., favorable sentencing) qualify	Held: statutory language is broad; obtaining a more favorable sentence is a benefit within § 943.203(2)

State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis. 2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (discusses manifest injustice standard for plea withdrawal)
State v. Cain, 342 Wis. 2d 1, 816 N.W.2d 177 (reviewing court may consider the totality of the record when evaluating manifest injustice)
State v. Black, 242 Wis. 2d 126, 624 N.W.2d 363 (a factual basis exists if an inculpatory inference can be drawn from the record)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (principles of statutory interpretation and plain-meaning rule)
State v. Peters, 263 Wis. 2d 475, 665 N.W.2d 171 (rejects limiting identity-theft statutes to commercial value; non‑commercial benefits can qualify)
State v. Moffett, 239 Wis. 2d 629, 619 N.W.2d 918 (multiple charging permissible when conduct violates multiple statutes)