State v. Timothy L. Finley, Jr.
2016 WI 63
Wis.2016Background
- Defendant Timothy L. Finley Jr. pleaded no contest to first-degree reckless endangerment as domestic abuse with dangerous‑weapon and repeater enhancers pursuant to a plea agreement; remaining counts were dismissed and read in.
- The correct maximum statutory penalty (with enhancers) was 23 years, 6 months imprisonment (bifurcated as 18.5 years initial confinement + 5 years extended supervision), but a plea form and the court at colloquy incorrectly referred to "19 years, 6 months confinement."
- At sentencing the court imposed the correct 23.5‑year term. Finley moved postconviction to withdraw his plea (and alternatively sought commutation to 19.5 years). The trial court denied withdrawal, then commuted the sentence to 19.5 years and denied withdrawal.
- The court of appeals found a Bangert prima facie violation, the State failed at the evidentiary hearing to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Finley knew the correct maximum, and ordered plea withdrawal.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: because the plea colloquy misstated the potential punishment and the State did not prove Finley knew the correct maximum, Bangert/Brown require that Finley be permitted to withdraw his plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misstatement of the maximum statutory penalty in plea colloquy can be remedied by reducing (commuting) the sentence instead of allowing plea withdrawal | State: if defendant was told a lower maximum and ultimately receives no more than that lower amount, the plea is constitutionally knowing and commutation suffices | Finley: under Bangert/Brown, misstatement + lack of defendant knowledge entitles defendant to withdraw plea unless State proves knowledge by clear and convincing evidence | Held: Where the court misstated the potential punishment and the State failed to prove defendant knew the correct maximum at plea, Bangert/Brown govern and defendant is entitled to withdraw plea (commutation alone insufficient) |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required and who bears the burden | Finley: alleged a prima facie Bangert violation and lack of knowledge → entitles him to evidentiary hearing | State: argued the error was insubstantial or harmless and that record showed defendant understood the component parts | Held: Prima facie showing required a Bangert hearing; State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary despite colloquy deficiencies; State failed to meet burden here |
| Applicability of Cross and Taylor (cases allowing sentence modification in some circumstances) | State: Cross/Taylor support remedy of commutation where defendant was misinformed and got sentence equal to what he was told | Finley: Cross/Taylor are distinguishable when defendant lacked knowledge and State cannot prove it | Held: Cross and Taylor distinguishable—those cases involved either insubstantial misstatements or records demonstrating defendant knew the correct maximum; here Bangert/Brown control and withdrawal is required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246 (Wis. 1986) (establishes required plea‑colloquy duties and framework for postconviction evidentiary hearing and State burden)
- State v. Brown, 293 Wis. 2d 594 (Wis. 2006) (restates/supplements Bangert; if State cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence defendant understood the deficient colloquy, defendant is entitled to withdraw plea)
- State v. Cross, 326 Wis. 2d 492 (Wis. 2010) (holds insubstantial or higher‑than‑actual misstatements do not necessarily require withdrawal; commutation can cure an excessive sentence)
- State v. Taylor, 347 Wis. 2d 30 (Wis. 2013) (holds plea stands where record shows defendant knew the correct maximum despite colloquy omission; distinguishes cases where defendant lacked knowledge)
- State v. Chamblis, 362 Wis. 2d 370 (Wis. 2015) (due‑process protects a defendant who pleaded to a lower charge from being forced to accept a higher‑penalty disposition; remedy must respect what defendant understood he pleaded to)