Opinion ID: 1724484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Can accused after a plea of guilty question the evidence?

Text: The plaintiff, after a plea of guilty now contends that there was no evidence that force was used in the commission of the crime as required by statute, that the blow to the head of the attendant was not in the commission of the robbery, but was to facilitate escape. His argument is essentially that there was no evidence or insufficient evidence to show that force was used in committing the robbery. As we have said in Hawkins v. State (1965), 26 Wis. (2d) 443, 448, 132 N. W. (2d) 545: . . . a plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly made, constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. In that case, it was held that the defendant waived his right to object to the use of evidence that he claimed was illegally seized. In State v. Lampe (1965), 26 Wis. (2d) 646, 648, 133 N. W. (2d) 349, Mr. Justice HALLOWS stated:  By the plea, the defendant admitted the facts charged but not the crime and in this respect a plea of guilty is like a demurrer. We deem that Rafferty by his plea of guilty has not only waived any objection to the legality of the evidence, but also to the quantum of it. He cannot now claim that there was insufficient evidence to sustain conviction on his plea of guilty. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.