Opinion ID: 2216325
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plea withdrawal prior to sentencing

Text: [6,7] This Court will sustain a circuit court's ruling denying a motion to withdraw a plea unless the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion. State v. Canedy, 161 Wis. 2d 565, 579, 469 N.W.2d 163 (1991). A discretionary determination, to be sustained, must demonstrably be made and based upon facts appearing in the record and in reliance on the appropriate and applicable law. Id. at 579-80 (quoting Hartung v. Hartung, 102 Wis. 2d 58, 66, 306 N.W.2d 16 (1981)). [8-10] A circuit court should freely allow a defendant to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing if it finds any fair and just reason for withdrawal, unless the prosecution has been substantially prejudiced by reliance on the defendant's plea. [7] Id. at 582. But `freely' doesn't mean automatically. Id. A fair and just reason is some adequate reason for defendant's change of heart ... other than the desire to have a trial. Id. at 583. The burden is on the defendant to prove a fair and just reason for withdrawal of the plea by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 584. [11] Garcia asserted at the postconviction hearing that he was confused at the time he entered his plea about the consequences that would stem from entering an Alford plea. [8] Garcia correctly states that confusion is a fair and just reason for withdrawal. Dudrey v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 480, 485, 247 N.W.2d 105 (1976). Garcia also states that, although his motion to withdraw his plea was not filed until one month after the plea was entered, he realized that he made the wrong decision the same day he entered the plea. [A] swift change of heart is in itself a strong indication that a plea is entered in haste and confusion. United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 208, 222 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1013 (1975). Here, the circuit court found that Garcia's claim of confusion as a reason for withdrawing his Alford plea was incredible and therefore found that there was no fair and just reason for the withdrawal of Garcia's plea. This Court held in Canedy that if the circuit court does not believe the defendant's asserted reasons for withdrawal of the plea, there is no fair and just reason to allow withdrawal of the plea. Canedy, 161 Wis. 2d at 585; see also Dudrey, 74 Wis. 2d at 483. Thus, if the circuit court's factual findings were correct, its ruling was supported by law. [12] Examination of the circuit court's order shows that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by finding that Garcia understood the plea negotiation at the time he entered his plea. The circuit court found that Garcia was a reasonably intelligent person who did not enter any special pleas based upon a lack of mental skills. The court also commented on the great facility with the English language exhibited by Garcia at the 1992 and 1993 hearings. Further, the court noted the testimony of Kohler and Radomski. Kohler testified that he never had difficulty communicating with Garcia during any of his more than twenty visits with him prior to trial. Kohler also stated that, until Ms. Ward arrived on the day set for trial, I never really realized he spoke Spanish, to be honest with you. Moreover, Radomski testified that he was with Garcia for sixteen hours in 1987, and he and Garcia conversed in English that entire time, including while Garcia was giving a statement in which he confessed to the shooting. Finally, the court stated that, His perception of all sorts of nuances regarding his rights, regarding his actions, regarding the implications of the questions are remarkably sophisticated. I can't attribute that to the six years that he spent in the Wisconsin State Prison. [13] Garcia argues that the circuit court erred by relying on his fluency in English at the 1992 and 1993 evidentiary hearings to conclude that he spoke English well when the plea was entered because the plea hearing was five years prior to those hearings. It is true that the operative time period for determining the defendant's understanding of the nature of the charge is at the plea hearing itself. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d at 269. Here, the circuit court used the correct time period, relying on the testimony of Kohler and Radomski as well as the testimony of Ward who stated that Garcia understood English quite well and the court's own extensive dealings with the defendant including the court's statement only two months after the trial that [t]he defendant's candor has not been particularly auspicious in this case because we had some discussions, and it's clear from the discussions we've had this morning that the defendant is very facile with the English language. The circuit court used Garcia's ability in the English language in 1992 and 1993 only to highlight the utterly incredible nature of Garcia's claim as to his ability in 1988.