State v. Riekkoff
1983 Wisc. LEXIS 2868, 332 N.W.2d 744, 112 Wis. 2d 119 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent a statutory exception, a conditional guilty plea, even with the concurrence of the prosecutor and the trial judge, does not preserve for appellate review non-jurisdictional issues that would otherwise be waived by the plea.
Facts:
- Ronald Craig Riekkoff was charged with burglary in Milwaukee, facing increased penalties due to habitual criminality.
- Riekkoff intended to present evidence from a psychiatrist to argue that, due to intoxication, he lacked the necessary mental capacity to form the intent required for burglary.
- A circuit judge ruled that this psychiatric testimony was inadmissible.
- Following this ruling, Riekkoff entered a plea of guilty.
- As a condition of the plea bargain, the prosecutor stated that the state agreed the plea would not affect Riekkoff's ability to seek appellate review of the ruling regarding the psychiatric testimony.
- Defense counsel asked the trial judge to confirm that the admissibility issue was preserved for appeal despite the guilty plea, and the judge acquiesced to this understanding.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Craig Riekkoff was charged with burglary in the circuit court for Milwaukee County.
- Prior to trial, the circuit court, Michael D. Guolee, Circuit Judge, ruled that psychiatric testimony proffered by Riekkoff regarding his mental capacity due to intoxication was inadmissible.
- Subsequently, Riekkoff pleaded guilty, and the circuit court found him guilty and sentenced him to a five-year term in state prison.
- Riekkoff appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment, refusing to review the exclusion of the psychiatric testimony on the grounds that the parties and trial court could not stipulate to appellate review following a guilty plea.
- This case is a review of that unpublished opinion of the court of appeals.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:
Does a defendant have the right to appellate review of an order denying the admission of proffered evidence, following a guilty plea, when the plea bargain included a reservation of that right agreed upon by the prosecutor and acquiesced to by the trial judge?
Opinions:
Majority - Heffernan, J.
No, a defendant does not have the right to appellate review of an order denying the admission of proffered evidence, even after a conditional guilty plea where the reservation of that right was agreed upon by the prosecutor and acquiesced to by the trial judge, because such conditional pleas are generally ineffective to preserve non-jurisdictional issues for appeal. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea waives the right to raise non-jurisdictional issues on appeal, as established in `Hawkins v. State`. The court clarified that this waiver rule is one of judicial administration, not subject-matter jurisdiction. The court emphasized that Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10) creates the only statutory exception to this general waiver rule, permitting appellate review of orders denying motions to suppress evidence or challenging the admissibility of a defendant's statement. Relying on the principle of `expressio unius est exclusio alterius` from `Foster v. State`, the court concluded that this statute creates the sole public policy exception. The court rejected the argument that the prosecutor's and judge's agreement to preserve the issue for appeal changes the outcome, stating that a defendant's intent to condition a plea is irrelevant to preserving appellate rights for matters otherwise waived. Conditional guilty pleas for non-statutory exceptions are not to be accepted and will not be given effect. However, because Riekkoff pleaded guilty believing he had preserved his right to appeal due to the court's and prosecutor's acquiescence, his plea was deemed not knowing or voluntary. Additionally, the prosecution violated its plea bargain by arguing that appellate review was barred, which constituted a denial of due process. Therefore, while the conditional plea was ineffective to preserve the appeal right, Riekkoff was granted the option to withdraw his guilty plea.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that, absent specific statutory exceptions, a guilty plea waives most non-jurisdictional issues for appellate review, regardless of any agreement between the parties or acquiescence by the trial judge. It reinforces the `expressio unius` canon in statutory interpretation concerning exceptions to general rules. The ruling places a strong emphasis on the finality of guilty pleas but also highlights due process concerns when plea bargains are misunderstood or violated, offering a remedy of plea withdrawal in such circumstances. This limits the ability of parties to create 'conditional pleas' outside of legislative mandates, promoting certainty in plea bargaining and appellate procedure.
