Title: State v. James L. Wright
Citation: 2004 WI 109
Docket Number: 2002AP003348-CR
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 9, 2004

2004 WI 109 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-3348-CR 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
James L. Wright,  
          Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 9, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 8, 2004   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Kenosha   
 
JUDGE: 
Bastianelli   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant there were briefs and oral 
argument by Charles Bennett Vetzner, assistant state public 
defender. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by David 
J. Becker, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief 
was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. 
 
 
 
 
2004 WI 109 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-3348-CR   
(L.C. No. 
99 CF 1145) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
James L. Wright,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 9, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Circuit Court for 
Kenosha County, David M. Bastianelli, Judge.  Order granting 
certification vacated and cause remanded to the Court of 
Appeals.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This case is before the court on 
certification 
by 
the 
court 
of 
appeals, 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.61 (2001-02).1  The court of appeals 
certified the following questions for our review: 
 
(1) Does a defendant who enters a plea of no 
contest based upon a negotiated plea agreement waive 
                                                 
1 All statutory references are to the 2001-02 edition of the 
Wisconsin Statutes. 
No. 02-3348-CR  
 
2 
 
the right to challenge the legality of the trial 
court's acceptance of the no contest plea? 
 
(2) Can a judgment of conviction be amended 
postconviction to reflect a conviction of a lesser 
crime (possession of 2.9 grams of cocaine with intent 
to distribute contrary to Wis. Stat. § 961.41(1m)(cm)1 
(1997-98)) when a factual basis for a greater crime 
(possession of 5.5 grams with intent to distribute in 
violation of § 961.41(1m)(cm)2) was alleged in the 
unamended original information and used as a factual 
basis for accepting a no contest plea entered pursuant 
to a plea agreement? 
¶2 
After examination of the record and the briefs of the 
parties, and after hearing oral argument, we conclude that the 
certification was improvidently granted. 
¶3 
We accepted the court of appeals certified question 
primarily to address the waiver issue.  The State, however, does 
not believe that issue is presented by this case.  The State 
writes in its brief: 
[T]he 
fundamental 
predicate 
to 
any 
waiver 
argument . . . would be that Wright entered a plea of 
no contest to possession of more than five grams of 
cocaine with intent to deliver. 
. . . . 
[T]he state does not believe that it can argue in good 
faith that Wright entered his plea of no contest to 
the offense of possession of more than five grams of 
cocaine with intent to deliver.  The record . . . is 
simply too ambiguous with respect to the offense to 
which Wright entered his plea. 
¶4 
The issue that the court sought to resolve in this 
case is not contested.  When this occurs, the contrast in views 
that is the hallmark of an adversarial process is dulled, making 
it difficult to render circumspect opinions.  See Baker v. Carr, 
No. 02-3348-CR  
 
3 
 
369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962) (noting the "concrete adverseness which 
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so 
largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional 
questions").  We are reluctant to decide cases in the absence of 
contrast between the parties.  Accordingly, we conclude that 
review in this case was improvidently granted, and we vacate the 
order granting certification.   
By the Court.—The order granting certification is vacated 
and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals. 
 
All work on this opinion was completed on or before June 
30, 2004.  Justice Diane S. Sykes resigned on July 4, 2004. 
 
No. 02-3348-CR  
 
 
 
1