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

Heading: facts

Text: On June 27, 1987, Mr. Alejandro Tejeda and Mr. Juan Braun were shot on South Sixteenth Street in Milwaukee. As a result of the gun shot wounds, both victims were partially paralyzed. One was confined to a wheelchair. Garcia was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder for the shooting incident on August 15, 1987, and was served with a warrant by Detective Radomski (Radomski) in Iowa on August 20, 1987. Shortly thereafter, Garcia gave a statement to Radomski in which he confessed to the shooting. Garcia waived his right to a preliminary hearing on August 27, 1987. Attorney Martin Kohler (Kohler), the third attorney to represent Garcia, was appointed on February 24, 1988. Some time before Kohler's appointment, the District Attorney offered the plea agreement which was eventually accepted. Garcia told Kohler that the people on the street were telling him that the victims would not show up at his trial. However, on the day of trial, October 17, 1988, several witnesses to the shooting, including both of the victims, came to court. The State had flown one of the witnesses in from California to testify. Ms. Connie Ward (Ward), an interpreter for Garcia, also arrived. When Garcia saw the witnesses, he told Kohler that he wanted to discuss the Alford plea. After a lunch break, Garcia decided to enter an Alford plea in return for a reduced charge of injury by conduct regardless of life on one of the two attempted murder counts. To do so, he signed two forms. The first was a Guilty Plea Questionnaire and Waiver of Rights Form that described the rights which are given up when a plea is entered and described the charges being pled to. On the front the charges were listed as ATTEMPT MURDER and IBCROL, and on the back they were listed as ATTEMPT 1° MURDER and IBCROL. IBCROL is an abbreviation for injury by conduct regardless of life, although that fact was not disclosed on the form. The second form was a Waiver of Trial By Jury and stated that the defendant waives trial by jury and consents to immediate trial before the court without a jury. After Garcia signed the forms, the prosecutor described the plea negotiations to the court, with an interpreter present, leading to the following colloquy: THE COURT: And does your client understand his constitutional rights and rights under the law to a jury trial, et cetera? MR. KOHLER: Yes, Your Honor. I have gone over it on a number of occasions. THE COURT: And is it your understandingdo you feel he understands what the negotiation is that has been just described by the district attorney? MR. KOHLER: I do. Your Honor, Mr. Garcia has always been able to communicate to me in English without any problem. He's more comfortable in Spanish, but yet has an understanding of English. He is very bilingual. THE COURT: Very good. We do have an interpreter .... You are Martin Garcia? THE DEFENDANT: (Through interpreter): Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: It is my understanding that you wish to change your plea to Count 1 ... from not guilty to an Alford-type plea which means that while you maintain that you did not commit the act, that the evidence against you is sufficiently strong that you and your attorney believe that the jury would most probably bring in a verdict of guilty to the offense charged. Is that what you want to do? THE DEFENDANT: (Through interpreter): Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And are you pleading guilty under Alford-type conditions freely and voluntarily? THE DEFENDANT: (Through interpreter): Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: With respect to Count 2 ... the state has proposed to amend the charge to injury by conduct regardless of life .... It is my understanding to this charge that you desire to enter a plea of guilty. Is that correct? THE DEFENDANT: (Through interpreter): Yes, Your Honor. The court went on to question Garcia about whether he understood that the court could impose the maximum sentence on the charges, to which Garcia, through the interpreter, answered Yes, Your Honor. The conversation continued: THE COURT: And in all respects, are you acting freely and voluntarily? THE DEFENDANT: (Through interpreter): Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the representation Mr. Marty Kohler has provided you during the course of these proceedings? THE DEFENDANT: (Through interpreter): Yes. THE COURT: Has he explained to you all of your rights that are important to you as well as the possible defenses that you have? THE DEFENDANT: (Through interpreter): Yes, Your Honor. The court then asked Garcia whether he was agreeing to give up a series of rights, including the right to a jury trial. To each question, Garcia answered Yes, Your Honor. After the prosecutor read into the record the facts the State was prepared to prove, the circuit court accepted the plea. One month later, Garcia filed a motion to withdraw his plea. Kohler withdrew from the case. After two more attorneys withdrew, Garcia's sixth counsel, Mr. Domingo Cruz, was appointed. The circuit court denied Garcia's motion on April 5, 1989. After sentencing, Garcia's seventh and current counsel, Mr. Michael T. Sullivan, Jr., was appointed and he filed another motion to withdraw the plea pursuant to secs. 809.30 and 974.02, Stats., (1993-94). The circuit court denied that motion on August 21, 1990. Garcia appealed both orders, and the court of appeals reversed the April 5, 1989 order because the circuit court had applied the wrong legal standard, i.e. the circuit court ruled that the plea could not be withdrawn because there was no showing of manifest injustice where it should have used the more liberal standard allowing withdrawal upon the showing of any fair and just reason. State v. Garcia, No. 90-2025-CR, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. June 4, 1991). On remand, hearings were held on January 28, 1992, April 17, 1992, and May 19, 1993, and the circuit court again denied Garcia's motion. Garcia again appealed the judgment of conviction and orders denying withdrawal of his plea, and the court of appeals this time affirmed. Garcia then petitioned this Court for review, which was granted.