State v. May
927 N.W.2d 919, 2019 WI App 21, 386 Wis. 2d 628 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing must prove by clear and convincing evidence that withdrawal is necessary to avoid a manifest injustice, either due to ineffective assistance of counsel or a plea that was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.
Facts:
- Edith May committed a series of crimes, including burglary, armed robbery, and attempted armed robbery, in Kenosha over several months.
- Police obtained a warrant to search May's residence for specific items related to an attempted armed robbery, such as shoes, a hooded sweatshirt, a facemask, and a handgun.
- During the execution of the search warrant at May's residence, police discovered cocaine inside a CD player.
- Police subsequently arrested May for possession of cocaine and burglary.
- May confessed to the crimes of burglary, armed robbery, and attempted armed robbery following her lawful arrest.
- The State possessed substantial evidence against May, including security footage implicating her in burglary and armed robbery, and footprints of the perpetrator of the attempted armed robbery leading to her residence.
Procedural Posture:
- Edith May was charged with burglary, armed robbery, and attempted armed robbery, all as a repeater.
- May pled guilty to these charges in the circuit court (trial court).
- The circuit court sentenced May to a total of six years of initial confinement and five years of extended supervision.
- May subsequently filed a postconviction motion in the circuit court seeking to withdraw her guilty pleas, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and a defective plea colloquy.
- After a hearing, the circuit court denied May's postconviction motion.
- May appealed the judgment of conviction and the order denying her postconviction motion to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is Edith May entitled to withdraw her guilty pleas after sentencing on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel or a defective plea colloquy, specifically regarding the court's failure to advise her about preserving suppression issues?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
No, Edith May is not entitled to withdraw her guilty pleas because she failed to demonstrate either ineffective assistance of counsel or a defective plea colloquy that would amount to a manifest injustice. To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim in the context of a plea, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that there's a reasonable probability that, but for the errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial (citing Strickland v. Washington and Bentley). Given the substantial evidence against May for the pleaded-to crimes (security footage, footprints, and May's confession after her lawful burglary arrest), there was no reasonable probability that a suppression motion regarding the cocaine discovered during the warrant search would have altered her decision to plead guilty. As for the claim of a defective plea colloquy (Bangert claim), the court found no statutory or case law requiring a circuit court to inform a defendant that pleading guilty forfeits the right to raise a suppression issue. In fact, such advice would be technically incorrect, as WIS. STAT. § 971.31(10) allows for appellate review of a denied suppression motion even after a guilty plea. May's inability to raise a suppression issue on appeal stemmed from her failure to litigate such a motion, not from her guilty pleas themselves.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high burden on defendants seeking to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing, requiring clear and convincing evidence of a manifest injustice. It clarifies that a defendant's failure to pursue a suppression motion before pleading guilty, rather than the plea itself, is what typically precludes appellate review of suppression issues under Wisconsin law, particularly given Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10). The decision underscores the importance for defense counsel to carefully evaluate and litigate suppression issues prior to a plea, as the mere possibility of an unlitigated suppression motion will not satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance claim if overwhelming independent evidence supports the conviction.
