Case ID: wis-2d_225/html/0036-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. \n      ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kenneth L. Moucha, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
    
    Supreme Court
    
      No. 97-3483-CR.
    
    
      Oral argument February 25, 1999.
    
    Decided April 13, 1999.
    
    (Also reported in 590 N.W.2d 918.)
    
      For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs and oral argument by David D. Cook, Monroe.
    For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Daniel J. O'Brien, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
    
      
      Motion for reconsideration denied May 26, 1999.
    
   PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. Petitioner, Kenneth L. Moucha (Moucha), requests this court to review an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, State v. Moucha, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. March 24, 1998) in which the court of appeals affirmed the order of the Chippewa County Circuit Court, the Honorable Thomas J. Sazama presiding, which denied Moucha's presentence and post-conviction motions to withdraw his plea.

¶ 2. After fully examining the record and the briefs filed by the parties, and hearing oral arguments, we conclude that this case does not present the legal issue that the court anticipated, namely whether a defendant's misunderstanding the terms of a plea agreement is sufficient to warrant withdrawal of his plea. The record, particularly the circuit court's findings of fact, preclude us from determining this issue. The only issues presented are those that do not meet the criteria this court has adopted for reviewing court of appeals' decisions. State v. Kennedy, 167 Wis. 2d 742, 743, 482 N.W.2d 652 (1992). Therefore, we dismiss this petition for review as improvidently granted.

By the Court. — The petition for review is dismissed as improvidently granted.

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.

¶ 3. {concurring). The court accepted review of this case. The parties filed their written briefs and also presented oral arguments to the court. Since this case has been fully briefed and argued, I would decide the case on its merits. I therefore do not join the majority's determination that the petition was improvidently granted.

¶ 4. I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON joins this opinion.