*1 232
On record what this defendant had testified he knew charged appearance. He with at the initial which informed at the of the acts time alleged to he was have committed.
I he was would hold that knew what charged with, (1969), required as Ernst 43 v. State McCarthy United 661, 170 713. v. Wis. 2d N. 2dW. Sup. 22 (1969), 1166, Ed. 459, States L. U. S. Ct. Boykin 238, 418, S. v. U. Alabama Sup. I affirm the Ct. 23 L. Ed. would denying the motion to withdraw order of the plea. am authorized state Mr. Justice Connor T. I join in Mr. Justice Robert Hansen Hansen W. dissent. State, Defendant error, v. Plaintiff
Bressette, error. Argued February 2, March 1972. Decided 1972. No. State (Also 635.) reported in 194 N. W. 2d *4 236 plaintiff
For the a Michael error there brief deVries, Rick Schallert, B. and Vlasak Milwaukee, & all argument by and oral Rick. Mr. argued by
For the defendant in error the cause was Boyd, attorney general, Richard J. assistant with whom attorney general. Warren, on Robert the brief W. urges J. Beilfuss, be that should permitted plea to withdraw and stand trial on merits case.
A be must allowed to withdraw his only the court must order a new trial those instances where refusal to do in “mani- would result so 1 injustice.” fest An examination of the record us convinces fully complied requirements all of the pleas (1969), for as set forth in Ernst v. State 661, 674, 170 2dWis. N. W. judge
The trial age, determine the did defendant’s edu- general understanding. (A pretrial cation medical- conducted.) mental examination was Counsel was Reppin (1967), State v. Wis. N. 2dW. *5 appointed judge represent to defendant. The did the charged that establish accused understood that he was the robbery conduct that defendant admitted and the robbery. which advised The defendant was constitutes penalty imposed of and that the maximum could be that consecutively to the sentences could ordered be served be response twenty years. in for a total of The defendant acknowledge question by judge no to a the did that promises threats, the or force had been used to obtain guilty. pleas of post- appears from it complaint,
The defendant’s as appointment of petition for conviction motion and his trial counsel that he claims his court, counsel is imposed run con- him be to told the sentences would guilty. postconviction mo- currently pleaded if he This by plea denied the tion to withdraw the was judge properly that the trial The record reveals and so. could be specifically the defendant that he informed they that could years count on each and to ten sentenced consecutively period of for a total to run be ordered twenty years. that de- further reveals the The record acknowledged knew affirmatively that he fendant receive such sentences. could presence the entered, in pleas of were
Before hearing range defendant, the as- and within of if the unequivocally attorney stated district sistant recommenda- pleas the state’s entered defendant imposed to counts as both be that sentences tion would be ordered would that the sentences and be the maximum the sen- what concurrently. knew The run to recommendation the state’s and what could be tences guilty. The pleas of he entered his going be before injustice no manifest bargain not breached plea score. appears on this the oral behalf filed in brief contend that because
argument counsel bargain *6 robbery count of armed was reduced to rob- bery, obligated satisfy the court was to itself that the defendant robbery. knew the elements of armed Neither of the pleas, filed, informations and to which entered he charged robbery (one the armed com- defendant with plaint did). obligated The court not a is to be de- sure fendant and of a crime knows elements understands the charged obligation not of is with. The the court is to be sure the the that what elements knows charged of the are that the crime which he and is crime conduct which defendant admits the the constitutes charged. obligation The record fulfilled. shows this was appellate counsel also there
Defendant’s asserts judicial accepting an element intimidation in the was of plea. that the defendant’s for assertion is The basis this judge impatient de- trial trial counsel for the when was testify Thompson rather to fendant wanted the victim complaining than the trial counsel the officer. When objected testimony officer, asked to the of the court the re- jury counsel counsel if he a trial when wanted and “No,” judge sponded counsel that the further advised any (Thompson he could call court- witnesses was in the room) testimony. if he was not with the satisfied officer’s objection any withdrawn, The then and in the event rights right of confrontation one of the constitutional is guilty.2 upon plea of no waived a We find error or abuse improper judicial discretion, pro- conduct of nor in this cedure. carefully the The reviewed entire record.
We have represented by adequate counsel, he was rights, of trial to waiver constitutional as advised charged penal- with, maximum and the crime he was the acknowledged imposed. He trial that could be to the ties threats, promises force no or used court that there were guilty pleas. pleas conclude the We of were to obtain the Sup. Pointer v. Texas U. S. Ct. L. Ed.
voluntarily, intelligently knowingly and entered into. The testimony in the record that he was no doubt leaves guilty charged. judge noted crimes the As sentence, at the of time of attacks viciousness charged with was so extreme that he could have been bargain additional defend- crimes. relieved the being charged of on these ant the detriment tried of ex- facts, an additional offenses. These combined with prior justify im- record, tensive criminal the sentences posed. nothing lead find record that would We necessary permit defend- us to conclude that it to is pleas correct ant to withdraw his order injustice. put no way, find To it another we manifest injustice pleas the sen- and the manifest *7 imposed approved. are tences Judgment By order affirmed. the Court. — disagree majori- (dissenting). I J. with the Wilkie, ty position to the central in this their relative issue on permitted been to with- the defendant have case: Should injustice? prevent plea a to manifest his of draw essence, ascertain the court did not defendant’s In because understanding bargain plea de- made, the he had the of plea to his been withdraw have allowed fendant should guilty. of concurring opinion State,1 Farrar Mr. in v.
In our opinion writer this Chief Justice the Hallows bargained plea ac- expressed a is the that before view the court, court should ascertain cepted in the the understanding bargain, the and if defendant’s kept, by not bargain the is as understood opportunity to withdraw have the the defendant should Su- guilty. Subsequently, the United States plea of 2York v. New declared preme Court in Santobello bargain may keep plea form to a prosecutor’s failure the guilty plea. for the withdrawal a the basis 1 (1971), 52 Wis. U. S. 651, 662-664, Sup. Ct. 191 N. W. 495, L. 2d Ed. 2d 427. 214. charged In instant case the defendant was the This, robbery contrary (2), armed 943.32 Stats. to sec. alleged despite to have been fact never the that he was and, fact, armed with armed at time was never the bargain” weapon. “plea a reduc- was in this case robbery charge unarmed rob- tion of to the from armed bery. Clearly with a not “armed defendant was therefore, dangerous weapon” (2)) and, (sec. 943.32 robbery. Thus possibly could not of armed be convicted bargain the plea defendant and entered into the the prosecution illusory. completely I believe that the trial
Under these circumstances obliged that his conduct to inform the If, robbery. understand- after not armed did constitute crime,3 the defendant still ing the law as it related plead be valid. guilty, then the would wished to de- judgment and allow and order I would reverse guilty plea. to withdraw fendant error, Defendant in error. State, Bastian, Plaintiff v. February 3, Argued March 1972. 1972. Decided No. State 687.) (Also reported in 194 N. W. 2d *8 2d Ernst v. State Wis. 170 N. W. p. 224, ante, 713; 194 N. McAllister v. State W.