Case Title: State v. Sisakhone S. Douangmala

Citation: 2002 WI 62

Docket Number: 2000AP003292-CR

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2002-06-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
2002 WI 62 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
00-3292-CR 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
v. 
Sisakhone S. Douangmala,  
 
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at:  247 Wis. 2d 498, 633 N.W.2d 278 
(Ct. App. 2001-Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 19, 2002 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 10, 2002   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Brown   
 
JUDGE: 
Donald R. Zuidmulder   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by 
Robert R. Flatley and Will & Flatley, Green Bay, and oral 
argument by Robert R. Flatley. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by 
Shunette T. Campbell, assistant attorney general, with whom on 
the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
 
2002 WI 62 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  00-3292-CR  
(L.C. No. 
98 CF 221) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Sisakhone S. Douangmala,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 19, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed and 
remanded.   
 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE.   This is a 
review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals.1  The 
court of appeals affirmed an order of the Circuit Court for 
Brown County, Donald R. Zuidmulder, Judge, denying the motion of 
Sisakhone S. Douangmala, the defendant, to withdraw his plea of 
no contest.   
                                                 
1 State v. Douangmala, No. 00-3292-CR, unpublished slip op. 
(Wis. Ct. App. July 31, 2001). 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Wisconsin Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) (1999-2000)2 requires a 
circuit court to address a defendant personally and advise the 
defendant as follows: "If you are not a citizen of the United 
States of America, you are advised that a plea of guilty or no 
contest for the offense with which you are charged may result in 
deportation, the exclusion from admission to this country or the 
denial of naturalization, under federal law."   
¶3 
This case presents the following question:  If a 
circuit court fails to give the deportation3 warning required by 
§ 971.08(1)(c), when accepting a guilty or no-contest plea, is a 
defendant entitled to withdraw the plea later upon a showing 
that 
the 
plea 
is 
likely 
to 
result 
in 
the 
defendant's 
deportation, regardless of whether the defendant was aware of 
the deportation consequences of the plea at the time the 
defendant entered the plea?   
¶4 
We answer the question presented in the affirmative.  
We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2) expressly sets forth the 
remedy to be granted upon a defendant's motion if a circuit 
court fails to advise a defendant about deportation consequences 
as required by § 971.08(1)(c) and if the defendant shows that 
the plea is likely to result in deportation.  Section 971.08(2) 
states that under these circumstances the circuit court "shall 
                                                 
2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 1999-2000 version, unless otherwise indicated. 
3 We use the word deportation to mean deportation, exclusion 
from admission to this country, or denial of naturalization as 
described in Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) and (2). 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
3 
 
vacate any applicable judgment against the defendant and permit 
the defendant to withdraw the plea and enter another plea."4  The 
defendant in the present case fulfilled the conditions set forth 
in § 971.08(2), and accordingly we reverse the decision of the 
court of appeals affirming the order of the circuit court that 
denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his no-contest plea.  
We remand the cause to the circuit court to vacate the judgment 
of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his plea and 
enter another plea.  
 
I 
¶5 
For the purposes of this review, the facts are not in 
dispute. 
¶6 
The defendant, Sisakhone S. Douangmala, is a native of 
Laos and is not a U.S. citizen.  On March 12, 1998, a criminal 
complaint was filed against the defendant.  A preliminary 
hearing was scheduled for March 18, 1998, at which time defense 
counsel requested that an interpreter be appointed for the 
defendant.  Defense counsel stated that "[a]lthough [the 
defendant] is English-speaking, he was born in Laos, [and] has 
been in the United States about ten years.  The Laotian language 
                                                 
4 Wisconsin Stat. § 971.08(2) states, in relevant part:  "If 
a court fails to advise a defendant as required by sub.(1)(c) 
and a defendant later shows that the plea is likely to result in 
the defendant's deportation, exclusion from admission to this 
country 
or 
denial 
of 
naturalization, 
the 
court 
on 
the 
defendant's motion shall vacate any applicable judgment against 
the defendant and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea and 
enter another plea." 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
4 
 
is his 
primary language. 
 
He has 
not completed 
middle 
school . . . .  We can converse on most levels, but the legal 
process, legal word terminology, I'm not so sure."  No 
interpreter was found and none was involved in the present case. 
¶7 
On March 30, 1998, the defendant waived his right to a 
preliminary hearing and an Information was filed.  At that time, 
the circuit court queried the defendant as to whether he was 
having 
any 
difficulty 
understanding 
his 
attorney 
or 
understanding what was going on in the hearing.  The defendant 
replied, "A little bit, yeah.  . . .  The language.  I don't 
understand.  Like I learned my language from the street; I don't 
learn it from the school.  So basically if you come up with me 
with a big word, then I don't understand it." 
¶8 
On September 21, 1998, an Amended Information was 
filed, the defendant filed a Request to Enter Plea and Waiver of 
Rights form, and the defendant entered a plea of no contest.  
Question 17 of the Request to Enter Plea and Waiver of Rights 
form states:  
I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United 
States of America, a plea of guilty or no contest to 
the offense(s) for which I am charged may result in 
deportation, the exclusion from admission to this 
country or the denial of naturalization, under federal 
law. 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
5 
 
¶9 
The defendant initialed the blank in the margin to 
indicate that he understood the statement.5  The form also noted 
that he had completed the ninth grade in school, and the 
attorney wrote that the defendant could read, write, and 
understand the English language "20% and with help."   
¶10 Prior to accepting the plea of no contest, the circuit 
court questioned the defendant in detail, including asking if he 
was confident that he could understand what was going on in the 
proceeding, to which the defendant replied, "A little bit, not 
much."  However, at no time during the questioning did the 
circuit court ask the defendant whether he understood what the 
word "deportation" meant.  Moreover, the circuit court failed to 
comply 
with 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c), 
which 
requires 
that 
before a court accepts a plea of guilty or no contest, it shall 
give the advice set forth in § 971.08(1)(c) that deportation may 
result from the plea.  
¶11 On January 6, 1999, the defendant was sentenced to 
consecutive sentences totaling 25 years in prison, including ten 
years for being a party to the crime of burglary, ten years for 
being a party to the crime of robbery, and five years for false 
imprisonment.   
¶12 Following his conviction, the defendant received a 
written notice from the federal government ordering him to 
                                                 
5 In State v. Issa, 186 Wis. 2d 199, 202, 519 N.W.2d 741 
(Ct. App. 1994), the court of appeals concluded that if the 
circuit court does not personally advise the defendant regarding 
deportation, the mere reference to the guilty plea questionnaire 
does not satisfy Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c). 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
6 
 
appear at a deportation hearing.  The defendant appeared and was 
subsequently 
ordered 
deported 
because 
of 
the 
conviction 
resulting from his no-contest plea. 
¶13 The defendant filed a post-conviction motion seeking 
to withdraw his plea of no contest on several grounds, including 
the claim that he entered the plea without understanding the 
deportation consequences of the plea.  The circuit court denied 
the motion.  The court of appeals reversed the circuit court and 
remanded the cause for a hearing and findings of fact regarding 
the defendant's understanding of the possibility of deportation 
at the time he entered his no-contest plea.6 
¶14 On remand, the circuit court held an evidentiary 
hearing, at which the defendant testified that his first 
knowledge regarding deportation occurred when he was notified in 
prison about the deportation hearing.  When asked whether he 
would have pled no contest if he understood that he could be 
deported to Laos, the defendant replied, "Oh, no, no, no."  The 
defendant testified that he could not read the Request to Enter 
Plea and Waiver of Rights form and that he relied on his 
attorney to read it to him.  He further testified to having no 
recall of a discussion with his attorney regarding Question 17 
on the form, which discusses the potential for deportation if a 
defendant pleads guilty or no contest.   
                                                 
6 See State v. Douangmala, No. 99-2403-CR, unpublished slip 
op. (Wis. Ct. App. June 20, 2000). 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
7 
 
¶15 Defense counsel also testified at the evidentiary 
hearing.  She stated that she had no independent recollection of 
discussing deportation or Question 17 with the defendant, but 
that it was her practice to go carefully through the form and to 
discuss with her clients the consequences of a plea, which could 
include deportation.   
¶16 The circuit court denied the defendant's motion to 
withdraw his no-contest plea.  The court of appeals affirmed the 
circuit court's denial, concluding that the State presented 
sufficient evidence to support the circuit court's finding that 
the defendant knew of the deportation consequences at the time 
he entered his plea. 
¶17 We have stated the facts fully as they relate to 
whether the defendant knew of the deportation consequences of 
his plea at the time of his plea.  The parties briefed and 
argued this issue.  They disagree whether the State has failed 
to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant 
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered a plea of no 
contest.  We do not address this issue because we conclude that 
it is not determinative of the question whether the circuit 
court 
must 
permit 
the 
defendant 
to 
withdraw 
his 
plea.  
Accordingly we asked the parties for supplemental letter briefs, 
asking them in effect to address the following issue, which we 
conclude is determinative:  If a circuit court fails to give the 
deportation warning required by Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) (1999-
2000), when accepting a guilty or no-contest plea, is a 
defendant entitled to withdraw the plea later upon a showing 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
8 
 
that the plea is likely to result in deportation, regardless of 
whether the defendant was aware of the deportation consequences 
of the plea at the time the defendant entered the plea? 
 
II 
¶18 Three Wisconsin statutes come into play in resolving 
the issue presented: § 971.08(1)(c) (circuit court must give 
deportation advice); § 971.08(2) (a remedy for the failure of 
the circuit court to give advice); and § 971.26 (harmless 
error). 
¶19 We begin our analysis with Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c), 
which requires the circuit court to give a defendant advice 
about deportation before accepting a plea of guilty or no 
contest.  Wisconsin Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) states: 
(1) Before the court accepts a plea of guilty or no 
contest, it shall do all of the following: 
 . . . . 
(c) Address the defendant personally and advise the 
defendant as follows:  "If you are not a citizen of 
the United States of America, you are advised that a 
plea of guilty or no contest for the offense with 
which you are charged may result in deportation, the 
exclusion from admission to this country or the denial 
of naturalization, under federal law." 
¶20 The circuit court failed to comply with this statutory 
mandate when it did not address the defendant personally to 
advise him in the words set forth in Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) 
of the deportation consequences of the plea.  Indeed, the 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
9 
 
circuit court failed to discuss with the defendant the issue of 
deportation at all prior to or during the plea hearing.   
¶21 We 
agree 
with 
the 
court 
of 
appeals 
that 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) is a clear directive to the circuit 
courts and that it "not only commands what the court must 
personally say to the defendant, but the language is bracketed 
by quotation marks, an unusual and significant legislative 
signal that the statute should be followed to the letter."7 
¶22 The State argues that when a circuit court fails to 
comply with Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c), the State must prove by 
clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew of the 
deportation consequences of the plea at the time of the plea.  
The State argues that if it meets this burden, then the circuit 
court's failure to comply with § 971.08(1)(c) is harmless error 
and the defendant should not be permitted to withdraw the no-
contest plea.   
¶23 To evaluate the State's position about the effect of a 
violation of Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c), we turn to § 971.08(2).  
Section 971.08(2) requires a circuit court to "vacate any 
applicable judgment against the defendant and permit the 
defendant to withdraw the plea and enter another plea" when a 
defendant 
meets 
the 
following 
three 
conditions: 
(1) 
the 
defendant makes a motion; (2) the circuit court has failed to 
advise 
the 
defendant 
under 
§ 971.08(1)(c) 
regarding 
the 
                                                 
7 State v. Garcia, 2000 WI App 81, ¶16, 234 Wis. 2d 304, 610 
N.W.2d 180. 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
10 
 
deportation consequences of a no-contest plea; and (3) the 
defendant shows that the plea is likely to result in his being 
deported.  
¶24 Section 971.08(2) provides as follows: 
If a court fails to advise a defendant as required by 
sub. (1)(c) and a defendant later shows that the plea 
is likely to result in the defendant's deportation, 
exclusion from admission to this country or denial of 
naturalization, the court on the defendant's motion 
shall vacate any applicable judgment against the 
defendant and permit the defendant to withdraw the 
plea and enter another plea.  This subsection does not 
limit the ability to withdraw a plea of guilty or no 
contest on any other grounds. 
¶25 The defendant in the present case has met all three 
conditions set forth in Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2).  First, the 
defendant made the appropriate motion.  Second, the circuit 
court failed to advise the defendant under § 971.08(1)(c) 
regarding the deportation consequences of a no-contest plea.  
Third, both the State and the defendant agree that the defendant 
has shown, pursuant to § 971.08(2), "that the plea is likely to 
result in the defendant's deportation."  The precise words of 
§ 971.08(2) lead inexorably to one conclusion in the present 
case: the circuit court must permit the defendant to withdraw 
his plea.  
¶26 The 
State 
argues 
that 
this 
literal 
reading 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2) is contrary to the legislative intent.  
The State submits that § 971.08(2) is ambiguous because neither 
it nor § 971.08(1)(c) refer to the possibility that a defendant 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
11 
 
might be independently aware of the deportation consequences at 
the time of entering the plea.   
¶27 The State contends that the legislative history of 
1985 Wis. Act 252, which created Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) and 
(2), reveals that the legislature's intent was to protect only 
those who unwittingly enter a guilty or no-contest plea.  The 
State's position is that before a circuit court is required to 
grant a defendant's motion to withdraw a no-contest plea under 
§ 971.08(2), the circuit court must determine whether the 
defendant understood the deportation consequences of the plea 
despite the circuit court's failure to advise the defendant 
personally pursuant to § 971.08(1)(c). 
¶28 The State relies on materials submitted to the 
Legislative Reference Bureau by the legislators who requested 
the draft bill.  One comment in the materials describes statutes 
similar to Wis. Stat. § 971.08 as going "a long way to alleviate 
the hardship and unfairness involved when an alien unwittingly 
pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a charge without being 
informed of the immigration consequences of such a plea."8  
¶29 In contrast to these materials in the bill drafting 
file, the Legislative Reference Bureau's analysis of 1985 Senate 
Bill 541 states:  "The bill also describes the procedure for 
withdrawing a plea on the basis of the failure to give this 
advice [set forth in Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c)]."  Nothing in 
                                                 
8 See 1985 S.B. 541 Drafting Request LRB 4665 with 
attachment. 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
12 
 
the Legislative Reference Bureau's analysis of the bill states 
that the defendant is granted relief under § 971.08(2) only if 
the defendant had unwittingly pled to the charge when the 
circuit court failed to inform the defendant of the deportation 
consequences of such a plea.  Senate Bill 541 was adopted 
verbatim as § 971.08(1)(c) and (2).   
¶30 The Legislative Reference Bureau's analysis of a bill 
is printed with and displayed on the bill when it is introduced 
in the legislature.9  All the legislators thus had the 
opportunity to read the Legislative Reference Bureau's analysis 
of the bill at issue here, but they did not necessarily know 
what was in the original drafting records. 
¶31 The legislative history therefore persuades us that 
the legislature intended what the statute explicitly states.10  
                                                 
9 Wis. Stat. § 13.92(1)(b)2. 
10 The court of appeals examined the original drafting 
records and concluded that "the legislature did not intend a 
windfall to a defendant who was aware of the deportation 
consequences of his plea."  State v. Chavez, 175 Wis. 2d 366, 
371, 498 N.W.2d 887 (Ct. App. 1993). 
The original drafting records indicate that several states 
had adopted a statute similar to the one the Wisconsin 
legislature was considering.  The California court of appeals 
has interpreted the California statute similarly to how the 
Wisconsin court of appeals has interpreted the Wisconsin 
statute.  See People v. Murillo, 39 Cal. App. 4th 1298, 1305-06 
(Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (to withdraw a guilty plea, the defendant 
must establish that the trial court failed to advise of 
deportation consequences as required by statute and also that 
the defendant was unaware of deportation consequences when 
entering the plea and would not have entered the plea had the 
defendant been aware of the consequences). 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
13 
 
Section 971.08(2) states that if the conditions set forth 
therein are met (and they were in the present case), the circuit 
court "shall" vacate the judgment and shall permit the defendant 
to withdraw the plea.  The word "shall" in a statute is presumed 
to be mandatory unless a different construction is necessary to 
carry out 
the legislature's 
clear 
intent.11 
 
Nothing in 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08 points to a different interpretation of the 
word "shall" than an interpretation that the word signifies a 
mandatory act.   
¶32 The third statute is Wis. Stat. § 971.26, a harmless-
error statute providing that no proceeding shall be affected by 
reason of any defect or imperfection in matters of form that do 
not prejudice the defendant.12  Section 971.26 provides as 
follows: 
Formal Defects.  No indictment, information, complaint 
or warrant shall be invalid, nor shall the trial, 
judgment or other proceedings be affected by reason of 
any defect or imperfection in matters of form which do 
not prejudice the defendant. 
                                                 
11 State v. Koopmanns, 210 Wis. 2d 670, 677, 563 N.W.2d 528 
(1997); In Interest of C.A.K., 154 Wis. 2d 612, 621, 453 
N.W.2d 897 (1990).   
12 Furthermore, 
Wis. Stat. § 805.18 
directs 
courts 
to 
disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings, 
which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse 
party.  It also provides that no judgment shall be reversed 
unless the error affected the substantial rights of the party 
seeking to reverse or set aside the judgment.  Section 805.18 
governs criminal prosecutions by virtue of Wis. Stat. § 972.11.  
State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 547, 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985). 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
14 
 
¶33 The State argues that the harmless-error rule applies 
to Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) and (2) and urges us to adhere to 
State v. Chavez, 175 Wis. 2d 366, 498 N.W.2d 887 (Ct. App. 
1993), in which the court of appeals applied the harmless-error 
test. 
¶34 In Chavez, a Paraguayan alien pled guilty to first-
degree reckless homicide.  The circuit court failed to advise 
him pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) of the deportation 
consequences of his plea.  After Chavez was convicted, he filed 
a motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that § 971.08(2) entitled 
him to withdraw his plea even though he was aware of the 
likelihood of deportation when he entered his plea.  The circuit 
court denied the motion.  
¶35 On 
appeal, 
Chavez 
argued 
that 
because 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2) states that a defendant "shall" have the 
right to withdraw a plea, the statute mandates that the circuit 
court allow Chavez to withdraw his plea regardless of his 
knowledge of the deportation consequences at the time of the 
plea.  Chavez argued that his knowledge about deportation at the 
time of his plea was irrelevant under the statute.   
¶36 The court of appeals concluded in Chavez that while 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2) could be read literally to mean what it 
says, an ambiguity was created by the interaction between 
§ 971.08(2) and § 971.26, the harmless-error statute.  The court 
of appeals further concluded that when Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2) is 
read 
in 
conjunction 
with 
§ 971.26, 
the 
appropriate 
interpretation of § 971.08(2) is that the judgment of conviction 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
15 
 
may stand if the circuit court's failure to advise Chavez about 
the deportation consequences of the plea did not prejudice him.  
Chavez was not prejudiced, wrote the court of appeals, because 
he conceded he knew about the deportation consequences of the 
plea at the time of his plea without any advice from the court.  
It is not clear from the opinion whether Chavez showed that his 
plea was likely to result in his deportation.  
¶37 The Chavez harmless-error rule has been followed in 
State v. Issa, 186 Wis. 2d 199, 209, 519 N.W.2d 741 (Ct. App. 
1994); State v. Lopez, 196 Wis. 2d 725, 732, 539 N.W.2d 700 (Ct. 
App. 1995); and State v. Garcia, 2000 WI App 81, ¶1, 234 
Wis. 2d 304, 610 N.W.2d 180.  In Issa, Lopez, and Garcia, each 
defendant 
satisfied 
all 
three 
conditions 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2).  
¶38 In 
Issa, 
the 
defendant 
was 
not 
given 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) advice, and 
he was 
detained for 
deportation.  Relying on the Chavez harmless-error rule, the 
court of appeals remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing 
to determine whether in fact the defendant knew at the time of 
his plea that he was subject to deportation upon his conviction.  
If he knew, then no withdrawal of his plea would be allowed.   
¶39 In 
Lopez, 
the 
defendant 
was 
not 
given 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) 
advice. 
 
The 
defendant 
was 
conclusively presumed deportable.  An evidentiary hearing showed 
that the defendant knew at the time of the plea that he was 
subject to deportation upon his conviction.  The failure to give 
the § 971.08(1)(c) advice was therefore harmless error. 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
16 
 
¶40 In Garcia, the circuit court advised the defendant of 
the deportation consequences of his plea but not in the words of 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c).  The Immigration and Naturalization 
Service began deportation proceedings and then deported the 
defendant.  The court of appeals concluded that the circuit 
court's failure to strictly follow the statute was harmless 
error 
because 
the 
defendant 
understood 
the 
deportation 
consequences at the time of the plea.13 
¶41 The State urges us to apply principles of stare 
decisis to affirm Chavez and its progeny in interpreting 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2).  The State argues that Chavez was 
decided in 1993, that several court of appeals cases have 
applied the Chavez holding in cases falling within § 971.08(2), 
and that the legislature has not amended § 971.08(2) to overturn 
                                                 
13 Two other cases related to Chavez are of interest.  In 
State v. Baeza, 174 Wis. 2d 118, 125, 130, 496 N.W.2d 233 (Ct. 
App. 1993), the defendant was not given the § 971.08(1)(c) 
advice, and he was conclusively presumed to be deportable.  The 
court of appeals ruled that the circuit court must allow Baeza 
to withdraw his plea.  The Baeza case has been interpreted by 
the court of appeals as not involving the harmless-error test 
because Baeza did not know of the deportation consequences of 
his plea at the time of the plea.  See State v. Issa, 186 
Wis. 2d 199, 207 n.2, 519 N.W.2d 741 (Ct. App. 1994); Chavez, 
175 Wis. 2d at 369. 
In State v. Rodriguez, 221 Wis. 2d 487, 494-95, 585 
N.W.2d 701 
(Ct. 
App. 
1998), 
the 
circuit 
court 
gave 
the 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) advice, but the defendant thought he 
was a citizen.  He was not a citizen, and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service filed a notice of detainer.  The court of 
appeals held that his misunderstanding of his citizenship did 
not render his plea constitutionally infirm as not voluntarily, 
knowingly, and intelligently entered. 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
17 
 
the Chavez holding.  The State further urges that the harmless-
error rule applied to § 971.08(2) has been a fair and workable 
rule; that the circuit court is the best arbiter of whether a 
defendant knew or understood the deportation consequences of the 
plea; and that the evidentiary hearing required under Chavez has 
not presented difficulties.  The State argues that no compelling 
reason exists to justify overruling Chavez. 
¶42 The principle of stare decisis is applicable to the 
decisions of the court of appeals.14  Stare decisis requires us 
to abide by precedent established by the court of appeals unless 
a compelling reason exists to overrule the precedent.  The 
principle of stare decisis does not, however, require us to 
adhere to interpretations of statutes that are objectively 
wrong.  That the legislature has not taken action with respect 
to a statute that a court has construed is entitled to some 
weight in determining legislative intent, but it is not 
conclusive.15  As we have explained, we conclude that the Chavez 
harmless-error 
interpretation 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 971.08(2) 
is 
objectively 
wrong 
under 
the 
language 
of 
the 
statute.  
Accordingly, we overrule Chavez,16 Issa,17 Lopez,18 and Garcia19 to 
                                                 
14 Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 186, 560 N.W.2d 246 
(1997). 
15 Reiter v. Dyken, 95 Wis. 2d 461, 470-71, 290 N.W.2d 510 
(1980). 
16 175 Wis. 2d 366. 
17 186 Wis. 2d 199. 
18 196 Wis. 2d 725. 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
18 
 
the extent that these cases hold that harmless-error principles 
apply to a defendant who satisfies the conditions set forth in 
§ 971.08(2).  
 
III 
¶43 Once again, we see the difficulties that persons who 
cannot hear, speak, or, as in the present case, understand the 
English language encounter in our legal system.  The defendant 
in the present case stated several times that he was unable to 
understand much of the language being used during the legal 
proceedings at hand.  In the Request to Enter Plea and Waiver of 
Rights form, the defendant's attorney wrote that the defendant's 
ability to read, write, and understand the English language was 
"20% and with help."  The attorney testified that what she meant 
was "that he can read 20 percent and write 20 percent.  In other 
words that's . . . his skill level, and beyond that he needs 
help in terms of reading, writing, and understanding the English 
language.  In other words, that's his capacity, and he operates 
at about 20 percent of comprehension."  Although an attempt was 
                                                                                                                                                             
19 234 Wis. 2d 304. 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
19 
 
made to locate an interpreter, none was found.  So no 
interpreter was provided.20   
¶44 This court has stated that fairness requires that 
those who speak and understand only languages other than English 
and who become defendants in Wisconsin's criminal courts should 
have the assistance of interpreters when needed.21  If a criminal 
defendant is personally unable to pay for the services of an 
interpreter, one will be provided at public expense.22   
                                                 
20 Wisconsin Stat. § 885.37 provides that if a person is 
charged with a crime and is unable to speak or understand 
English, "the court shall make a factual determination of 
whether the language difficulty . . . is sufficient to prevent 
the individual from communicating with his or her attorney, 
reasonably understanding the English testimony or reasonably 
being understood in English.  If the court determines that an 
interpreter is necessary, the court shall advise the person that 
he or she has a right to a qualified interpreter and that, if 
the person cannot afford one, an interpreter will be provided 
for him or her at the public's expense.  Any waiver of the right 
to an interpreter is effective only if made voluntarily in 
person, in open court and on the record."  This procedure was 
not explicitly followed in the present case.    
21 State v. Piddington, 2001 WI 24, ¶43 n.23, ¶¶56-58, 241 
Wis. 2d 754, 623 N.W.2d 528; State v. Naeve, 117 Wis. 2d 359, 
365-66, 344 N.W.2d 181 (1984), overruled on other grounds by 
State v. Koch, 175 Wis. 2d 684, 693-94, 499 N.W.2d 152, cert. 
denied, 510 U.S. 880 (1993). 
22 Naeve, 117 Wis. 2d at 366. 
The 
Wisconsin 
state 
legislature 
recently 
adopted 
Wis. Stat. § 885.38 (published 2/15/02) governing interpreters 
in circuit and appellate courts.   
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
20 
 
¶45 As Wisconsin's immigrant population grows,23 obtaining 
qualified interpreters for an ever-growing, diverse, and multi-
language population remains a high priority.24  The present case 
again illustrates the necessity of the legislative, executive, 
and judicial branches of government of this state working 
together to provide qualified interpreters for persons who 
cannot hear, speak, or understand English to preserve their 
meaningful access to the legal system.25 
 
IV 
¶46 In summary, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 971.08(1)(c) 
sets forth the language a circuit court must use to inform a 
defendant of the deportation consequences of entering a plea of 
guilty or no contest.  In the present case, the circuit court 
did not advise the defendant in any manner regarding the 
deportation consequences of entering a plea of no contest.  If a 
circuit court fails to give the statutorily mandated advice and 
if a defendant moves the court and demonstrates that the plea is 
                                                 
23 The 2000 U.S. census shows Hispanic and Asian populations 
in Wisconsin doubled in one decade.  Larry Sandler and Greg 
Borowski, Madison, Dane County lead growth; Fox Valley grows 
twice as fast as state's southeastern region, Milwaukee Journal 
Sentinel, March 9, 2001, at 1A. 
24 For a discussion of issues regarding interpreters, see 
Committee to Improve Interpreting and Translation in the 
Wisconsin Courts, Report to the Director of State Courts, 
Improving Interpretation in Wisconsin Courts: And Justice for 
All (Oct. 2000). 
25 Piddington, 
241 Wis. 2d 754, 
¶58 
(Abrahamson, 
C.J., 
concurring). 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
21 
 
likely 
to 
result 
in 
the 
defendant's 
deportation, 
then 
§ 971.08(2) requires the circuit court to vacate the conviction 
and to permit the defendant to withdraw the guilty or no-contest 
plea.  Applying § 971.08(2) in the present case, we reverse the 
decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the 
circuit court that denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his 
no-contest plea.  We remand the cause to the circuit court with 
direction to vacate the judgment of conviction and permit the 
defendant to withdraw his plea and enter another plea.   
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed and the cause is remanded.   
 
 
No. 
00-3292-CR   
 
 
 
1