Circuit Court Case Study

797 Words2 Pages

ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Did Mr. Boyd knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently enter his guilty plea to one count of First Degree Reckless homicide? The circuit court accepted Mr. Boyd’s plea and entered the judgment of conviction.
2. Was there a factual basis for the plea? The circuit court accepted Mr. Boyd’s plea and entered the judgment of conviction
3. Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion when it sentenced Mr. Boyd to fifteen years initial confinement in prison followed by eight years extended supervision? The circuit court imposed the sentences.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In Milwaukee County Case No. 14-CF-4197 The State charged Mr. Boyd in a criminal complaint with one count of Possession with Intent to Deliver …show more content…

12). At the motion hearing, Attorney Erickson explained that Mr. Boyd was adamant about the motion and that Mr. Boyd would be arguing it pro se. (R. 30: 2-3). Mr. Boyd argued that a probable cause determination had not been made within 48 hours of his arrest as required by Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). He argued that this resulted in a violation of Due Process, which was grounds for dismissal of the case. (R. 30: 5). The Court found that there was no Riverside violation because a copy of the signed probable cause statement and judicial determination was attached to the State’s response to the motion and was timely. (R. 7-8; R. …show more content…

Boyd could argue that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently enter his pleas and that he therefore should be allowed to withdraw them. Plea withdrawal after sentencing requires a showing that the withdrawal is necessary to correct a “manifest injustice.” State v. Booth, 152 Wis. 2d 232, 235, 237, 418 N.W.2d 20 (Ct. App. 1987). A defendant meets this showing if the plea is not constitutionally valid. Hatcher v. State, 82 Wis. 2d 559, 565, 266 N.W.2d 320 (1978). To establish that a plea is not constitutionally valid, the defendant must show that its entry was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 257, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986). The record must establish that the defendant understood the charges against him and that the waiver of his constitutional rights was knowing and intelligent.

Open Document