Case Title: State v. Sou W. Her

Citation: 2008 WI 39

Docket Number: 2006AP001239-CR

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2008-05-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
2008 WI 39 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP1239-CR 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
     v. 
Sou W. Her, 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at: ___ Wis. 2d ___, 739 N.W.2d 490 
(Ct. App. 2007-Unpublished) 
 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 9, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 4, 2008   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Sheboygan   
 
JUDGE: 
Gary Langhoff   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs 
filed by Donald J. Chewning and Winter, Chewning & Geary, LLP, 
Two Rivers, and oral argument by Donald J. Chewning. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent the caused was argued by Sally 
L. Wellman, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief 
was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general. 
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 39
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP1239-CR  
(L.C. No. 
2002CF143) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Sou W. Her, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 9, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed as 
improvidently granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Sou Her petitioned for review of the 
decision of the court of appeals, State v. Her, No. 2006AP1239-
CR, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2007), 
affirming a judgment of conviction for false imprisonment and 
carjacking while masked and affirming an order denying his 
postconviction motion for resentencing.  After reviewing the 
record and the briefs of both parties, and after hearing oral 
arguments, we conclude that this matter must be dismissed as 
improvidently granted. 
No. 
2006AP1239-CR   
 
2 
 
¶2 
This case involves Her's agreement to plead guilty in 
exchange for an aggregate 15-year sentence recommendation from 
the State (10-years initial confinement with 5-years extended 
supervision).  The record clearly indicates that the district 
attorney intended Her's 15-year sentence to match what was 
believed to be the sentence of Her's co-defendant, Tong Xiong, 
who was charged two years previously.1  However, at the time of 
the plea offer, the district attorney misidentified Xiong's 
sentence as being only 15, not 25, years and based his offer on 
that mistake.  In response to questions by the court, the 
district attorney acknowledged that the offer was based upon 
that mistake.  The circuit court independently acknowledged the 
discrepancy and ordered an aggregate 25-year sentence to match 
Xiong's actual sentence.  On appeal, Her contends that the State 
breached 
the 
plea 
agreement 
and 
that 
trial 
counsel 
was 
ineffective. 
¶3 
We do not address either issue because the pertinent 
facts in this case are not as we initially understood them to be 
presented.  In particular, we understood the prosecutor's plea 
offer to be a recommendation of a 15-year sentence.  However, 
upon further review, we note that immediately following the 15-
year recommendation offer the prosecutor stated, "this offer 
reflects the same sentence received by Tong Xiong, his co-
defendant, on the same two counts." 
                                                 
1 Tong Xiong actually received an aggregate sentence of 25 
years, 15 of which was initial confinement, and 10 of which was 
extended supervision. 
No. 
2006AP1239-CR   
 
3 
 
¶4 
With the contradictory language of the plea offer 
simultaneously describing both a 15-year sentence and a sentence 
equal to Xiong's, the agreement's terms appear to be internally 
inconsistent, calling the plea agreement into doubt.  A valid 
plea agreement requires a meeting of the minds, evidenced 
through assent to the agreement's terms.  State v. Bembenek, 
2006 WI App 198, ¶11, 296 Wis. 2d 422, 724 N.W.2d 685.  However, 
neither party has addressed or established whether there was a 
required meeting of the minds in the formation of the plea 
agreement.  Without the parties addressing this foundational 
issue, we are unable to determine whether a breach of the plea 
agreement has occurred. 
¶5 
In addition, there has been no realistic remedy sought 
in this case.  If the petitioner were to receive his requested 
remedy——specific performance of the plea agreement through a new 
sentencing hearing——the same problems would inevitably recur.  
Specifically, it seems inevitable that on remand, the next court 
would again notice the sentencing discrepancy and ask the 
prosecutor about it; the prosecutor would again be required to 
answer honestly; and the same appeal could be filed by Her, with 
no clear resolution possible through Her's requested remedy.  
By the Court.—The review of the decision of the court of 
appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted. 
 
No. 
2006AP1239-CR   
 
 
 
1