Court reviews
claims for plea withdrawal
By
David Ziemer
Wisconsin Law Journal
Sept.
6, 2006
|
What
the court held
Case:
State v. Goynette, No. 2004AP2211-CR & State v. Howell,
No. 2005AP731-CR.
Issue:
Is a "package plea agreement" inherently coercive?
Is
a defendant who claims he did not understand party-to-a-crime
liability entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion
to withdraw his plea?
Holding:
No. A package plea agreement is no different from other
plea agreements in which leniency towards a relative is
one of the elements of the agreement.
No.
The defendant's allegation is merely conclusory.
Counsel:
E.J. Hunt, Kathleen M. Quinn, Milwaukee, for appellant Goynette;
Jeffrey J. Kassel, Madison, for respondent; Ellen Henak,
Milwaukee, for appellant Howell; James M. Freimuth, Madison,
for respondent.
|
The
Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued two decisions addressing the
standard for plea withdrawals, holding in both cases that the
motion for withdrawal was properly denied.
Package
Pleas
In
the first case, Timothy Goyette was charged with three others
in the fatal beating of a man. Initially they were charged with
first-degree intentional homicide, as party to a crime.
Ultimately,
however, the prosecutor offered a “package plea agreement”
— a plea agreement contingent upon three of the co-defendants
pleading guilty (the fourth’s case was resolved by separate
agreement). Under the agreement, the defendants pleaded guilty
to second-degree reckless homicide, and aggravated battery with
a gang enhancer.
At
a joint plea hearing with the three defendants, Goyette pleaded
guilty. During the colloquy, Goyette stated that nobody had threatened
or pressured him to get him to enter the agreement.
After
Goyette was sentenced to 25 years in prison, he moved to withdraw
his plea, arguing that he believed he was innocent, but that he
pleaded guilty under pressure, so that the codefendants could
reach plea agreements.
La
Crosse County Circuit Court Judge Dale T. Pasell held an evidentiary
hearing, but denied the motion. Goyette appealed, but the court
of appeals affirmed in a decision by Judge Paul G. Lundsten.
The
court held that the “package” nature of the plea did
not render it involuntary. The court found the pressure to be
no different than in the cases of Craker v. State, 66 Wis. 2d
222, 223 N.W.2d 872 (1974); Seybold v. State, 61 Wis. 2d 227,
212 N.W.2d 146 (1973); and Drake v. State, 45 Wis. 2d 226, 172
N.W.2d 664 (1969).
In
Craker, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held a plea was voluntary,
although the defendant claimed he was coerced by pressure from
family, friends, and clergy.
In
Seybold, the plea agreement provided that the defendant’s
wife, a co-defendant, would receive only probation. In Drake,
the defendant claimed he pleaded guilty only to avoid implicating
his wife. In both cases, the Supreme Court held the pleas voluntary,
notwithstanding such outside pressure.
Applying
those cases to Goyette, the court of appeals concluded, “Collectively,
Craker, Seybold, and Drake reject the proposition that a plea
is constitutionally involuntary if it is motivated by a desire
to obtain a benefit for another. None of these cases involved
a package plea agreement, but Goyette suggests no reason why their
reasoning should not apply here.”
The
court acknowledged that package plea agreements carry the risk
that one of the defendants will be improperly pressured into entering
a plea. But the court found nothing improper about such pressure,
calling it “the same type of self-imposed pressure at issue
in Craker, Seybold, and Drake.”
Accordingly,
the court affirmed.
Party
to a Crime
In
the second case, Andrae D. Howell was charged in the shooting
of Marcus Pearson. The complaint was later amended to allege party-to-a-crime
liability, based on evidence suggesting that Howell was not the
shooter.
After
Howell pleaded guilty and was sentenced, he moved to withdraw
his plea, claiming he did not understand party-to-a-crime liability,
but Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Jean W. DiMotto denied
the motion, without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Howell
appealed, but the court of appeals affirmed, in a decision also
written by Judge Lundsten, and joined by Judge Margaret J. Vergeront.
Judge Charles P. Dykman dissented.
Finding
that Howell failed to allege a defect in the plea itself, the
court held that he was not automatically entitled to an evidentiary
hearing, pursuant to State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246, 389 N.W.2d
12 (1986).
Instead,
the court applied Nelson v. State, 54 Wis.2d 489, 195 N.W.2d 629
(1972), and State v. Bentley, 201 Wis.2d 303, 548 N.W.2d 60 (1996).
Because it found Howell’s allegations to be only conclusory,
it affirmed the denial of the hearing.
In
Howell’s motion, he asserted that he entered his plea under
the mistaken belief that his mere presence at the shooting and
failure to prevent it was sufficient for party-to-a-crime liability.
However,
Howell admitted during the plea colloquy that he knew the other
actor had a gun when they exited the car and approached the victim.
In
addition, the circuit court had explained party-to-a-crime liability
to Howell as follows: “State would have to prove either that
you were the person who did all those things or that you intentionally
assisted someone else who was doing those things, knowing what
they were doing.”
Accordingly,
the court concluded that Howell understood party-to-a-crime liability,
and affirmed.
Judge
Dykman dissented, concluding that, because understanding party-to-a-crime
liability is a prerequisite to a voluntary plea, Bangert does
apply.
Dykman
wrote, “Howell tells us that he did not understand party-to-a-crime
liability, a complex and not totally intuitive subject to begin
with. He says that his attorney explained party-to-a-crime in
a way that led him to believe that his presence at a shooting
would permit a jury to find him guilty. The majority would require
something more than Howell’s misunderstanding, though that
would not be possible except under the most unusual of circumstances.”
Arguing
that, under the majority’s decision, defendants who really
do not understand vital information will nevertheless be held
to the results of involuntary pleas, Dykman dissented.
Click here for
Case Analysis.
David
Ziemer can be reached by email.
