State v. Thompson, 2012 WI 90

Thompson charged with two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child under 13, Wis. 948.02(1)(b), Class B felonies with up to 60 years each.
Statutes in 2005–06 created conflicting mandatory-minimum regimes: Act 430 (creating 25-year minimum under 939.616/939.617) and Act 437 (no minimum), leading to potential inconsistency on Thompson’s charges.
At all pretrial proceedings Thompson, defense, and court were unaware a 25-year minimum could apply; only after PSI did the parties learn of the possible minimum.
Circuit court granted a new trial based on due-process concerns for failure to inform of the potential minimum; Court of Appeals reversed this decision.
Wisconsin Supreme Court reverses, remands for prejudice determination and to assess whether the mandatory minimum applies; discusses the impact of Frye/Lafler on due process and potential ineffective-assistance claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does failure to inform about a possible mandatory minimum violate due process?	Thompson	Thompson argues lack of notice deprived ability to make informed decisions; State contends no right to plea bargain and no prejudice shown	Remand to assess prejudice; issue not decided here
Was the complaint defective for not stating the mandatory minimum under §970.02(l)(a)?	Thompson	If minimum applies, complaint omission was error; otherwise not	Remand to determine if minimum applies and prejudice from any defect
Did defense counsel's failure to discover/notify about the minimum constitute ineffective assistance?	Thompson	Assistance defense may be deficient if minimum applies; prejudice must be shown	Remand to evaluate prejudice if minimum applies; not decided on record here
Did the court of appeals err in applying forfeiture/waiver to objections under §971.31?	Thompson	Waiver/forfeiture principles govern timely objections; court should apply them	Remand to consider prejudice and other factors; nationwide precedents reinterpreted on remand

Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (U.S. (1977)) (no constitutional right to plea bargain; Weatherford governs due process expectations in plea context)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (S. Ct. 2012) ( Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel in plea negotiations; guidance for due process at critical stages)
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (S. Ct. 2012) (ineffective assistance in plea bargaining; importance of counsel during plea discussions)
State v. Martin, 162 Wis.2d 883, 470 N.W.2d 900 (Wis. 1991) (due process for informing punishment extent when pleading; use of prior convictions for enhancements)
State v. Wilks, 165 Wis.2d 102, 477 N.W.2d 632 (Ct. App. 1991) (plea-related notice and recidivist considerations; context for informed decisions)
State v. Stynes, 2003 WI 65, 262 Wis.2d 335, 665 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. 2003) (limits on understanding potential punishment at plea; due process considerations)
State v. Ndina, 315 Wis.2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612 (Wis. 2009) (forfeiture vs non-forfeiture of important rights; emphasis on fundamental rights)
State v. Mohr, 201 Wis.2d 693, 549 N.W.2d 497 (Ct. App. 1996) (voluntariness/informational context of pleas; related to informed decision-making)