Title: State v. Kenneth L. Moucha
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1997AP003483-CR
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 13, 1999

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-3483-CR 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
v. 
Kenneth L. Moucha,  
 
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.  
 
ON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at:  218 Wis. 2d 168, 578 N.W.2d 211 
 
 
 
(Ct. App. 1998, Unpublished) 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
April 13, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
February 25, 1999 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Chippewa 
 
JUDGE: 
Thomas J. Sazama 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
Bradley, J., concurs (opinion filed) 
 
 
Abrahamson, C.J., joins 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
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. 
 
No. 
97-3483-CR 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-3483-CR 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Kenneth L. Moucha,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.  
FILED 
 
APR 13, 1999 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM   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requests this court to review an unpublished decision of the 
court of appeals, State v. Moucha, unpublished slip op.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 
No. 
97-3483-CR 
 
2 
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. 
 
97-3483-CR.awb 
 
1 
¶3 
ANN 
WALSH 
BRADLEY, 
J. 
(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. 
 
97-3483-CR.awb 
 
1